President Bush Replies to My Iraq Critique

by Daniel Pipes
Wed, 25 Oct 2006
updated Thu, 26 Oct 2006

Send

Comment

RSS

Well, not exactly, but at a news conference today, George W. Bush in effect answered the argument I presented yesterday at "In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It," that coalition forces should be redeployed to the uninhabited regions of Iraq. He acknowledged problems in Iraq but insisted that the administration's course remains correct. He offered a strong rationale for the intense involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan) which I disputed:

Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban. … The fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are not worth it. To the contrary; the consequences in Iraq will have a decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism in the Middle East. If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia. … If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow.

The president is clear here, if not entirely explicit: The coalition must defeat the Islamists in Iraq to prevent them from taking the country over and using it as a basis to attack the United States.

I agree that we do not want Islamists ruling in Iraq but I wonder why the threat in Iraq is so important that American and other Western forces must fight them with boots on the ground in Baghdad. Actually, the Bush administration has already helped Islamists take over in Baghdad (not to speak of the Palestinian Authority) through elections; is that really so different from their winning a military victory? And speaking of a military victory, that is what Islamists are currently achieving in Somalia, with barely any response from Washington.

Why this inconsistency, this privileging of Iraq? I think it has little to do with the dangers of Islamists taking over there but results instead from the accumulated inertia of what I yesterday called the "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption. This holds that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. That's a mistaken mentality that is leading to major damage. It needs to be focused on and reassessed. (October 25, 2006)

Related Topics: Iraq, Radical Islam, US policy

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/trackback.php/687/2fb9f/091

Reader comments on this weblog entry

Title	By	Date
West can defeat radical Islam [219 words]	C Smith	Dec 31, 2006 23:31
At the command of Saudia [117 words]	Yuval Brandstetter MD	Dec 23, 2006 14:33
The Bush Response [188 words]	Mitzi Alvin	Nov 24, 2006 15:25
↔ Iraq [311 words]	clarence puckett	Dec 18, 2006 23:53
stay from view [101 words]	John Manitta	Nov 24, 2006 12:39
Uninhabited zones? [398 words]	bdoran	Nov 24, 2006 11:42
No Islamists in the PA before Bush? Ha. [127 words]	David P.	Nov 1, 2006 09:47
An immodest proposal [66 words]	Peter Herz	Oct 30, 2006 18:26
↔ more right [172 words]	dfwhite	Nov 9, 2006 17:47
Bush Is Right [499 words]	John R	Oct 29, 2006 19:13
Baathists - strategic partners [115 words]	Vijay	Oct 28, 2006 13:14
↔ Vijay is absolutely correct [139 words]	gary	Oct 28, 2006 16:33
↔ Not necessarily Vijay [289 words]	Bob	Nov 2, 2006 09:09
Rationale for continuing Iraq war [164 words]	Vijay	Oct 27, 2006 09:16
Not a great idea [275 words]	gary	Oct 26, 2006 22:15
↔ The writing is on the wall! [318 words]	nick4693	Nov 11, 2006 19:32
Bush is on the right track [68 words]	Rick House	Oct 26, 2006 20:29
Base of Operations? [136 words]	Kevin M	Oct 26, 2006 15:31
But what would terrorists do if they had oil money? [52 words]	J. Summers	Oct 26, 2006 11:56
It's the oil...! [103 words]	S Jain	Oct 26, 2006 11:51
↔ oil Schmoil [35 words]	Patrick	Oct 31, 2006 15:43
↔ Horse feathers! [139 words]	Bill	Dec 27, 2006 00:45
↔ You are wrong Bill [151 words]	Gary Anderson	Mar 11, 2007 23:34

Comment on this weblog entry

Name:	Email Address: Email me if someone replies to my comment
Title of Comments:
Comments:
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please. For complete regulations, see Guidelines for Comments. Top 25 recent comments Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

ADVERTISEMENTS