A Bit Oversimplified

Submitted by Ira Katz (United States), Sep 12, 2005 at 00:41

I appreciate the work you do and your usually excellent analyses. But one point stands as questionable. How can you say the world is safer when you acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq created a powerful Islamic radicalization? And that the benefits are security- related? I'm not sure if the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do or not. Not sure if the 'flawed' intel over WMD was the real story or a cover for an ulterior motive such as gaining a foothold in a geographic area of strategic oil supplies. I automatically compared his regime to Hitler's and felt strongly that we should and could not stand by. But we have not acted against other barbaric tyrants - where there is no oil. You may be right that Iraqis might have suffered more than they are currently, had Saddam still been in power. However, their suffering is not over. We can't be sure they'll have a stable, terror-free country when we leave in some semblance of stability, or if bloody, civil strife is inevitable. I sure hope not.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".