69 million page views

Bush Is Right

Reader comment on item: President Bush Replies to My Iraq Critique

Submitted by John R (United States), Oct 29, 2006 at 19:13

Bush: 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.

I agree 100%

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.

The corollary to successfully invading Somalia is apparantly, virtually nothing. For Iraq, it's the opportunity to make America and the world safer. We went to war with Iraq because of the threat of nuclear weapons amid the World Trade Center terrorist attack still fresh on our minds. Somalia does not posess nor do we perceive weapons of mass destruction, unlike Iraq, hence we cannot treat Iraq and Somalia the same way. Iraq being a source of oil is another reason.

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)

We are not rehabilitating for altruistic or moral reasons a country that we invade, Dr, Pipes, as if Americans are a bunch of saints. We do that for our own self interest also, therefore it is not for moral reasons and therefore there is nothing wrong with it. In the case of Iraq, we rehabilitate for the sake of lessening terrorism against us.

I would like to see us go to the mat over our plan of establishing democracy in Iraq, etc, etc, those that Bush and his acolytes have been saying despite Iraq's devolution of internecine strife. To fall short is to sugarcoat a failure. Hang in there, we'll make it.


John R.

Submitting....

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".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (23) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
West can defeat radical Islam [219 words]C SmithDec 31, 2006 23:3171281
At the command of Saudia [117 words]Yuval Brandstetter MDDec 23, 2006 14:3370343
The Bush Response [188 words]Mitzi AlvinNov 24, 2006 15:2567197
Iraq [311 words]clarence puckettDec 18, 2006 23:5367197
stay from view [101 words]John ManittaNov 24, 2006 12:3967187
Uninhabited zones? [398 words]bdoranNov 24, 2006 11:4267175
No Islamists in the PA before Bush? Ha. [127 words]David P.Nov 1, 2006 09:4764985
An immodest proposal [66 words]Peter HerzOct 30, 2006 18:2664827
more right [172 words]dfwhiteNov 9, 2006 17:4764827
Bush Is Right [499 words]John ROct 29, 2006 19:1364765
Baathists - strategic partners [115 words]VijayOct 28, 2006 13:1464682
Vijay is absolutely correct [139 words]garyOct 28, 2006 16:3364682
Not necessarily Vijay [289 words]BobNov 2, 2006 09:0964682
Rationale for continuing Iraq war [164 words]VijayOct 27, 2006 09:1664610
Not a great idea [275 words]garyOct 26, 2006 22:1564587
The writing is on the wall! [318 words]nick4693Nov 11, 2006 19:3264587
Bush is on the right track [68 words]Rick HouseOct 26, 2006 20:2964578
Base of Operations? [136 words]Kevin MOct 26, 2006 15:3164560
But what would terrorists do if they had oil money? [52 words]J. SummersOct 26, 2006 11:5664548
It's the oil...! [103 words]S JainOct 26, 2006 11:5164547
oil Schmoil [35 words]PatrickOct 31, 2006 15:4364547
Horse feathers! [139 words]BillDec 27, 2006 00:4564547
You are wrong Bill [151 words]Gary AndersonMar 11, 2007 23:3464547

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Bush Is Right by John R

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)