The Individualist: A Positive Effect of the Iraq War

Posted by Joe Rivett on 05.24.2006

We are fighting them there so we don't fight them here!!! Or something like that.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose the Iraq War. For starters there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and even worse, it appears the Bush and Blair Administrations selectively viewed intelligence. For those that use the argument that the French thought there was weapons too, you are correct but do not forget it was the French that wanted weapon inspector confirmation because they were not sure.

Another common reason to oppose the Iraq War is the human and monetary cost of conducting this war. When one compares loosing over two-thousand troops and over ten-thousand injured to other modern wars, the number isn't bad. However, the fact that in the end this war will add up to over a trillion dollars is a problem. Was it really worth a trillion dollars? Many including myself question that. I also question that when countries like China and Saudi Arabia fund our debts.

The other most common reason to oppose the Iraq War is the fact that the only solution is going to be political and there is nothing our military can really do about it. If the Parties in Iraq cannot form a stable government, our army can do nothing about it. Additionally, the presence of the US army could be making things worse. Many believe that if the military withdraws, Iraq may actually become more stable. This is Russ Feingold's argument.

But there will come a day when the US significantly withdraws military from Iraq. As much as I am not wild about this war, I fear for the coming of that day. Currently, Al Qaeda is putting much of its resources into making life difficult for our military in Iraq. If the military leaves, where will Al Qaeda likely place its resources? To me the answers are clear: The US, Israel, and Afghanistan. Three places where we do not want them to place their resources and attention.

Over the last couple years, this idea that Iraq is making Al Qaeda divert its resources has led to the argument: "We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." This is a shady argument because it was never a justification for war. Thus, I cringe every time I hear a politician recite that phrase. However, while it may be a shady argument, it is an effect of the war.

Not only is it an effect, but it is a very positive effect. Since 9/11 there have been no major attacks on US soil. Yet, many from both parties in our government still love to claim we aren't safe. But I think we are safe. How many times have you seen our "terror traffic light" change recently? Now you might respond by saying "Well Joe, Bush just used it as a way to scare us into reelecting him." And I can't argue with that. But if there were serious terror threats, wouldn't you think the Bush administration would warn the hell out of us? Especially, considering he is desperate to make those polls he claims to never care about go up.

Recently, the Bush Administration has not bothered to warn us about terror threats. Therefore, I can only conclude that there are no major threats. This means that we need to make hypotheses why the threat of terrorism is so low. We need to figure out why we haven't been attacked again.

I have two hypotheses. The first is simple. The terrorists are planning something major. In addition, when viewing the history of Al Qaeda, they tend to strike every few years or so. When they strike, they usually strike big.

The second hypothesis is that the Iraq and Afghanistan War is taking the focus off bombing the US. Even when the terrorists think of bombing outside the Middle East, they are picking on countries that supported the US invasion of Iraq. If Al Qaeda is that big and powerful, don't you think they would have at least done something? Anything to us?

Al Qaeda has done nothing since 9/11 to the US except for sending people to Iraq to encourage violence against the occupying force. So this idea that we are not safe under Bush or that we can't trust the Republicans or Democrats for that matter on security appear to be hogwash. Even though there are many more negative effects than positive effects of the Iraq War, I think one can't ignore the effect that the war diverted the attention of the terrorists. Possibly, attacking rouge nations may be the best way to fight terrorist groups or as the old football metaphor states, "The best defense is a good offense."

When the US is on the offense, Al Qaeda has to play defense. When they are on defense, they aren't hurting us. Does this excuse the problems of the Iraq War? Hell no. But in a war going so wrong, there is one positive effect, and no, it is not that Iraq is better off without Saddam, (That is a different column for a different day). The positive effect is that we have not been attacked. So the next time the news is bad from Iraq, which will probably be tomorrow, think of this column and maybe it will cheer you up. The next time our fear mongering government tells you that your family is not safe, think of this column and you'll feel safer.

By the way, if anything happens to the US this week, disregard this column from your memory.

Here is a response from a reader about Bush's immigration speech:

Illegal aliens SHOULD be considered felons. They have broken federal law. Man am I tired of hearing about how the illegal aliens are just ordinary people who had no choice other than to take the "risk" of living and working here in absolute violation of the law. What "risk" are they taking? Obviously every 20 years or so people such as yourself are going to lie down and let the illegal aliens protest right over you. All the while telling us what our laws should be and that we HAVE to educate, feed and care for all there equally illegal kids...in their native language no less. Meanwhile these same kids have NO respect for this country nor for the citizens who live here. Then you will forgive them for blatently and repeatedly breaking the law and make them citizens. It does not surprise me that Bush would push to ignore the fact these people disregarded the law. Hell he disregards any law that might get in the way of anything he wants to do. I live in Phoenix AZ and I work for the county hospital and have to deal with these people every day so trust me when I tell you that within 50 years all the border states will be crime infested cess pools just like to cities, towns and villages these illegal aliens are coming from. Here is the policies I would like to see instituted:

1. If an employer is found to have hired illegal aliens that employer forfeits 100% his business and is not illegible to own or run a company for a period of 10 years.

2. Make our boarder with Mexico impenitrable regardless of the cost. Raise my taxes to pay for it. It will be worth every penny in the long run.

3. The first time an alien is caught being here illegally they should be finger printed, photographed and have a sample of their DNA put in a database. Then deported.

4. The second time an alien is caught being here illegally match their finger prints, photograph and DNA to positively identify them. Once that is done, shoot them.

If you and Bush and all the other blind bleeding hearts are successful in getting another amnesty passed 11 million illegal aliens will seem like a tiny drop of water compared to the tidal wave of illegal aliens that will flood this country. Actually the flood already started a few months ago. As soon as they heard there was going to be ANOTHER amnesty given the number of people from south of our border crossing ILLEGALLY into the U.S. increased by a factor of 10. And to top it off....if they happen to die in the desert during their attempt......that is OUR FAULT TOO.

Thanks for the Email here is my response:

1. Your first suggestion is reasonable except for the fact that employers need a strong system to verify if someone is legal. They cannot be held responsible for a forged document just like you can't fault a bar owner for being tricked by a fake ID.

2. You will never see Republicans calling for raising taxes to pay for anything. They didn't even raise it for a war so I doubt they will raise it to build a wall.

3. I agree with number 3

4. I'm thinking your fourth suggestion was a joke… I hope.

Here is why we give a path to citizenship for the eleven million… We let them into the country. You can't just let people in and then decide to enforce a law. That would be like me allowing my students to cheat and half-way during the year become strict. It is unfair. Secondly, just because someone breaks a law does not make them an instant felon. There is a difference between crossing a border to help a US company find employment and getting drunk and driving a car into somebody.