[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu, I appreciate your thoughtful posts on the matter. While I disagree with your position on Iraq, I think your approach to the dialogue is productive for good debate and gives people the opportunity to be convinced by your points. (Even though it is unlikely that someone will be completely swayed, but they may accept some of your claims and arguments that they would not have otherwise.)

Let me explain what I believe that the flaw is with your reasoning. I agree that we want to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil. (I agree less that it is okay to induce terrorist attacks elsewhere to accomplish this goal, and I am not sure that is exactly what you are saying. I suspect you want to stop the terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world, and it's just a matter of degree over how we should balance our desire to prevent terrorism everywhere and our naturally stronger desire to prevent terrorism here.)

However, I believe that the evidence clearly indicates that the motivation of the terrorist organizations for their attacks has been the increased military presence of American troops in Arab land -- particularly our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Persian Gulf War. Of course, I do not believe that this motivation in any way morally legitimizes the atrocities that were committed, but I believe that understanding this motivation is essential to our strategy to prevent terrorism in the long run.

While we are indeed fortunate not to have suffered any terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, I think our involvement in Iraq has increased the motivation for fundamentalist Muslims to terrorize us. Simultaneously, we have crippled the organization to a certain extent (how much I don't really know) through our campaign in Afghanistan, have improved our homeland defense (to a certain extent) and it is certainly true that terrorists are (for the time being) distracted by our involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, our military and Iraqi military and Iraqi civilians are losing their lives, and this is undesirable. If their sacrifices will significantly decrease the likelihood of future attacks (beyond the time we are in Iraq -- as I assume you agree that we cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely to deflect terrorists), then it might be a regrettable but necessary (or at least justified) loss. However, I believe that the fundamental flaw with this reasoning is the assumption that the campaign in Iraq has truly lessened significantly (and not perhaps even increased) the risk of future terrorist attacks, especially after we eventually leave Iraq but inevitably get blamed for any future problems that they have.

I recognize that you may disagree with my assessment and I admit that the situation is so complex that it is hard for me to make a good judgment, and my opinion is just the best judgment I can form. I also, despite my skepticism, want us to make the best decisions in Iraq from this point forward that will protect us from terrorism, protect the Iraqi people from terrorism, and provide them with the necessary resources for them to sustain their current drive toward democracy (while at the same time not flaming the fuel of the insurgency anymore than we have to). Hopefully, a consensus can be reached on this latter point and more debate will take place on how we should prioritize our goals in Iraq and how best to accomplish them.

Respectfully,
Mike