There is a thread running on Renderosity about the war in Iraq. It seems that this place is turning into the political version of the extreme feminist camp that is the Ms. Magazine forums. If you want to know what the far left is thinking, you will find it there.

32. Re: Explain it to everyone again by soulhuntre on 3/12/04 15:49

“Now, invading Iraq and capturing Saddam was supposed to stop Osama and Al Queda, how?”

Actually I don’t recall anyone ever saying it was going to put an end to terrorism for the rest of time. If you can find such a statement, I would be interested in your sources. I know I never head the President say any such thing.

However, the case for the removal of Saddam on anti-terror grounds is a strong one. The removal of Saddam from power in Iraq has a number of positive effects, all of which increase our security from a terror standpoint and some of which are worth mentioning here.

At the time of the invasion, Saddam was the “poster child” of anti-US sentiment in the Middle East. He was openly defiant of the UN and the US and that he was doing so was creating an environment where Middle Eastern dictators and anti-US forces felt invulnerable to retaliation or direct influence. This climate certainly contributed to the 9/11 attacks – the only way a state sponsored group like Al Queda would get the support and resources needed for a major attack on the US is when those powers feel secure.

By Invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, especially by once again proving how easy it is for the US to roll over the best military in the area (among our enemies in the region) we sent a dramatic message to everyone in the Middle East that they are not in any way secure from retaliation.

Additionally the invasion of Iraq has specific other regional benefits. A US presence (we will no doubt retain the rights to a military base in the region, and the new Iraq will certainly remain an ally in some degree) dramatically increases our ability to project force, conduct covert operations and gather intelligence. Since the failure to have a strong local operative presence in the Middle East is one of the reasons we lacked good information on what was happening this is a good thing.

In short; what had been a large region that was almost unanimously anti-US and had acted almost completely without fear of retaliation or direct influence from the West is now a somewhat fragmented region with a large US presence smack dab in it, standing on the destroyed regime of one of it’s most outspoken and defiant leaders. They can no longer assume that they are safe, or that their regime will survive provoking us, and they are vividly aware that defiance of US and UN will will no longer come without price. That does slow down the flow of state resources, safety and support that governments in the region will provide.

There is now credence to the threat of US retaliation for an attack upon us, a dictator only needs to look at Iraq to see what can happen if they become the target of our ire. Appeasement never works, it never will work. When fighting an enemy that uses force as his first and only tool you eventually need to demonstrate your force to “get their attention”. By their own actions Iraq was a good candidate for a demonstration of this, and they got hammered. Fine by me.

Personally? I think it was long past time that the festering boil of terrorism that is the Middle East got a wake up call about what it means to attack the big kids on the block. If the word WMD had never been uttered I still would have supported the invasion for the above reasons alone.