Operation Iraqi Freedom is a Failure
Reader comment on item: Pipes calls war a success

Submitted by Pro-Israeli Democrat (United States), Apr 10, 2006 at 12:21

First off, thank you to Dr. Pipes for allowing us to debate these critical issues, whether or not we agree. Debate is the essence of what America is about. This message is a call from someone who is a liberal on domestic policy and a mix of liberal, moderate, AND (in some cases) conservative on foreign policy for an administration that protects the civil liberties of Americans, and fights terrorism effectively, of which the Bush Administration has done neither. Instead it has turned Iraq into the primary battlefield in the war on terrorism.

In spite of what the right-wing propagandists on the FOX News Channel (which is our version of the Arab propaganda station Al-Jazeera) say, the fact is that the Iraq War has been a failure. We have diverted resources that should have been reserved for the war in Afghanistan, which I believe was justified. Furthermore, we have also lost a great deal of leverage that could have been using in stopping Iran's nuclear program. That, of course, is the greatest threat to the existence of Israel since 1973. Iran, meanwhile, exerts a great deal of influence in Iraq (I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT OWNS THE SOUTH) and is using that to gain the upper hand in its nuclear program. As a result, Israel is in grave danger, for the Iranian government is unpredictable and dangerous. I am not so much worried about Khamenei as much as I am about that NUTCASE Ahmadi-Nejad. He is a holocaust-denying disgrace to humanity. As a pro-Israeli Jew, I am very, very afraid. The loss of Tel-Aviv, more than anything else, would devastate me. Bush has let Israel down and few even care to recognize it.

Secondly, the Iraq war has, in Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's words (as in the words of former CIA operative Bob Baer), created 1000 Bin Ladens without capturing the original one. AND THERE IS NO AL-QAEDA ANYMORE. NOW THERE IS A MILLION GROUPS THAT CALL THEMSELVES AL QAEDA AND THEY ARE TRAINING FOR FUTURE ATTACKS IN AMERICA AND EUROPE ON THE BATTLEFIELDS OF A FAILED STATE. I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT IRAQ CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT AN IRON-FISTED DICTATOR (NOT A SADDAM, BUT A KAMAL ATATURK. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS ONLY ONE ATATURK). NO BONES ABOUT IT: MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT IRAQ BECOMING ANOTHER IRAN (ALTHOUGH THAT IS A CONCERN), AS IT BECOMING ANOTHER LEBANON OR SOMALIA, WHICH IS EVEN WORSE. BROKEN NATIONS, MORE THAN ANY OTHER, PRODUCE TERRORISM. THE COUNTRY IS IN THE GRIP OF A CIVIL WAR.

Even if Iraq does stabilize, democracy in Iraq means Islamist rule. Capitalism, meanwhile, will not work for Iraq in the way it works for the US. It is meant for developed nations ONLY. I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein...He was a sadistic, brutal tyrant, and I have seen shots of the destruction of Kurdish villages in the Al-Anfal campaign (1988) that made me shed tears. Before anyone condemns me as "anti American" or a "Marxist-Leninist" I am going to say that the 1991 Gulf War was justified, for at that time he was real threat (that we had built up during the 1980s, anyways). It was the right thing to do, and Saddam was a real &$%^&#$@.

Here is the problem: Our military exists to thwart foreign THREATS, and NOT for humanitarian purposes. That is what the multi-lateral action in Kosovo was for. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat...WHY NOT RE-DEPLOY AND FOCUS ON A MORE THREATING NATION LIKE IRAN. In my mind, George W. Bush is no better at fighting terrorism than he is at ANYTHING else. The Patriot Act does nothing except rob Americans of Civil Liberties (I dont care if they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Hindus, etc). As for the Dubai Ports Deal, that would only put us in even more danger, for the UAE IS A TERRORIST SPONSER. Bush is not a terrorist-fight. He is a businessman, and should be compared with Richard M. Nixon for his wiretap programs. Any concerned American, in my mind should pause and ask themselves a simple question: what's next? What's fifty years down the road? What's 150 years down the road? A Monarchy?

The Administration, meanwhile, cares more about ending the separation of church and state and ending a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not she wants to give birth than it does about fighting terror. To show that I am not biased against conservatives, I am going to say that Clinton was just as bad. He may have been even worse for blowing so many chances to kill Bin Laden. Then again, Reagan too failed to retaliate against Iranian Pasdaran units in Lebanon's Bekka Valley following the attacks on our embassy and marine barracks in Beirut. My point is this: we have yet to have a President who can fight terror effectively. AND HERE IS WHY: UNTIL WE GAIN INDEPENDENCE FROM OIL, WE WILL NOT WIN THE WAR ON TERROR.

If the Bush Administration cares so much about fighting terror, then why not go into SAUDI ARABIA instead. The money they could use to help the Palestinians they claim they care so much about get a state goes to Al-Qaeda and HAMAS' "Kill the Jews" ceremonies...and yes, the country is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Problem is, oil seems to be more important than human life. Every time you fill up your car, you are funding HAMAS (which is a despicable, deplorable organization). In my mind, "Iraqi Liberation Day" is nothing to celebrate, for March 19th, 2003 should be seen as the day the "War On Terror" went awry, and as a result, the Islamic Extremists are winning. I am writing this message to show everyone that there are liberals (indeed many) who realize that there is a war on terror that we need to fight. It is not a matter of conservative or liberal. It is a matter of effective and ineffective.

Unfortunately, it is too late because now we have a broken nation on our hands. I am just as upset about the distorted image of America, the country that I grew up in, and love so much, and I know many people, both liberal and conservatives who feel the exact same way.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.