69 million page views

Rationale for continuing Iraq war

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

Submitted by Vijay (United Kingdom), Oct 27, 2006 at 09:16

Daniel Pipes says "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.".

Saddam Hussein, for all his faults and crimes, which were many, was anything but an Islamist. He used to suppress Islamists with an energy and ruthlessness, which we can only envy. At no point he had any aggressive designs on the US or any country outside his immediete neighbouhood. The Islamist revolt in Iraq, which Bush is trying to contain has been brought about by the toppling of Saddam. One can say with confidence that the the pro-American, post-Saddam regimes have done far more for Islamisation right under American noses; this includes suppression of women, application of Sharia and so on. This is escpecially true in Shia areas where the Khomeinist ideas have taken hold. The biggest beneficiary of the US efforts in Iraq for the last 4 years is Khomeinism and the Teheran regime.


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".

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.)