| Monday, June 9, 2008 - 05:30 am |
"Interesting points all, but a bit simplistic perhaps? The attacks on the USS Cole, Saudi Barracks, World Trade Center One, embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, etc. all occured BEFORE our assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, we may reasonably conclude that the hatred and war on the United States was underway for a decade before we chose to respond forcefully."
USS Cole: Yemen
Saudi Barracks: Umm...Saudi extremists?
World Trade Center 1: Planned and executed by Kuwaitis
African Embassy Bombings: Only Iraqi connection I could find there was Uday Hussein praising al-Qaida twenty days after the fact of the Nairobi bombing.
The Iraqi connections are pretty thin at best. Invading the wrong country is SURE to stir the pot of extremism, and done that it has.
It is also worth noting that each and every one of the attacks you cited in that post occurred AFTER the *first* Gulf War, too.
And yes, my reaction to the thought of invading Iraq in the summer of 2002 consisted of, "Why don't we ask the Brits how THEIR occupation of Iraq went in the first half of the century?" I do believe that the Middle East is generally a no-win situation; if we leave it to itself, there will be that 1% of the population who will periodically spawn a suicide bomber; if we try to "pacify" it, we will give the other 99% plenty of reasons to BECOME suicide bombers.
I do not view the Middle East as monolithically evil or monolithically good. I do believe that we've been running around the region in a bulldozer, wrecking everything in our path, when perhaps we would be better served with a basic toolbox.
No matter what ideology we are dealing with, violence nearly always begets more violence. Never forget that.