Counterproductive? I think not.

Submitted by John O (United States), Feb 25, 2009 at 08:07

Regarding the statement:
"The moral of the story is: the fastest way to convert potential jihadists into actual jihadists is to send infidels into an Islamic country. To say that the American invasion of Iraq was counterproductive, is the understatement of the decade."

This conclusion is baseless, and completely out of context. While I followed the analysis of the potential number of jihadists interesting, it is by no means clear that over-throwing Saddam Hussein's corrupt government was "counterproductive". Those millions of "activated" jihadists met their maker as a result of their attacks on U.S. troops, leaving far fewer to attack tomorrow.

Meanwhile, only a few thousand American troops have been killed by hostile action... that is half the number who died during peace time under former President Clinton. Americans should be hailing former President Bush as one of the greatest presidents of all time -- he did something no one considered possible on September 12: he prevented any more terrorist attacks on American soil during the remainder of his presidency. And he did it without tremendous loss of American lives.

Those soldiers in Iraq did more than serve as targets for Islamic jihadist aggression; they showed the world how Americans can restrain and defend themselves against attack. They demonstrated true compassion and care toward the Iraqis who were being defended. These behaviors will leave a lasting impression on an entire generation of Muslims in Iraq. It will be hard to continue making the case that America is "the Great Satan" -- especially now that Muslims have learned we are "people of the book", who the Qu'ran has forbid aggression against.

As it turned out, America spent nearly 1 Trillion for foreign oil in 2008. If Hussein had been left alone, then this figure could easily have doubled -- especially after Hussein invaded Kuwait, a sovereign nation. This destabilizing balance of trade happened for two reasons: 1) Iraq needs the money to rebuild its infrastructure and remain secure after American troops pull out, and 2) Democrats in Congress have blocked every attempt to drill for more oil in the United States during the past 15 years.

The Democrat party has been far more "counterproductive" than the over-throw of Hussein's regime, in my opinion.

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".