So What?

IRAQ & THE WAR ON TERROR

When a reporter brought up the fact that Al Queda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion, former president Bush has been reported to have said 'So What.' Of course he has been greatly ridiculed about this.That is just one exhibit of ignorance in the media, which may be the reason for the ignorance that many American people have about this war. Many politicians and those in the media love to say 'Bush Lied' and want to impeach him for his 'War Crimes.' Lets start off by looking at some of the 'lies', myths, and misconceptions that many Americans have come to accept due to media ignorance. ( or is it just media bias, what is the difference).

The first myth is the belief that the war on terrorism should be focused exclusively on Al-Queda. If Al-Queda was not in Iraq, Iraq was not a problem, and we should never have invaded. Afghanistan is the central front on the war on terror, while Iraq was just a distraction. Another myth is that the only other justification for going into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Both of these myths lead many to conclude that Bush misled us, or he lied, and the war was illegal, and he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Let's start with the simplest lie first. When we look at the bipartisan authorization to use force in Iraq, only about a quarter of the reasons given for the invasion had to do with weapons of mass destruction. Once it appeared that no smoking gun would be found, democrats and the media found a political opportunity to hang George W. Bush. All of a sudden, what was once agreed to be the central front on the war on terror, became a 'wild cowboy' finishing his 'daddy's war.' It turns out that the media and the democrats are the ones creating the fabrications. When you look at the original justifications for going into Iraq, most of the reasons had to do with removing a tyrant and enforcing the cease fire with Iraq that had been violated for years. Now in a post 911 environment, it was very dangerous for the U.S. to maintain such a position of weakness with an middle eastern government.If George Bush is guilty of war crimes, then so should be every member of congress that gave authorization to invade in the first place.

The second myth is that it was important that Al Queda be in Iraq. The problem with terrorism is much larger that just Al Queda. The heart of the problem is to convince radical Muslims to reject 'jihad of the sword' and accept the mainstream philosphy of 'jihad of the heart'. We must get the middle east to embrace 'modernization without westernization'.

According to Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Islam is misunderstood:

"We like to say that we are fundamentalist; but that is a different connotation in the west. Because the West uses fundamentalism as equated to extremism. When we say we are fundamentalist, we pray five times a day for example. But in the same manner we reject violence, we reject extremism, we are a very pluralistic society, because that is what Islam is all about. Islam protects other religions; Islam allows other religions to exist, to co-exist with Islam. And that is the practice in Malaysia."

Dinesh D'Souza, an expert on middle eastern relations and culture states:

'Incredibly many Americans think that somehow Islam is incompatible with democracy, or that traditional Muslims don’t want democracy. In reality, a majority of the world’s Muslims today live under democratic governments—in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Turkey, not to mention Muslims living in Western countries. There is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic tradition that forbids democracy.'

In another article D'Souza goes on to say:

'Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s."

Modernization without westernization (westernization referring to contemporary cultural values of the American left) is the worst nightmare for extremist Muslims.Once extremist Muslims realize that their acts of terror will not stop the spread of global capitalism, but instead encourage the U.S. to take an active role militarily in helping mainstream Muslims establish modernized democracies in the middle east, the stakes of terrorism become quite large. That is why hundreds of Muslims who espouse extremist views have flocked to Iraq to stop what what may be a revolutionary change in the middle east.

Again fron D'Souza:

'Democracy, even fragile democracy, would refute the pessimism of history and provide an example to the rest of the Muslim world. And if democracy began to spread to other countries—perhaps Iran, perhaps Egypt—we could see the beginnings of an historical transformation no less staggering than the transformation of the former Soviet Union.'

and

‘Iraq represents America’s initiative not to establish democracy everywhere but to establish democracy somewhere. Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals want America to fail in Iraq not because they fear democracy per se but because they fear pro-American democracy.... Iraq is America’s best chance to promote traditional Islam as a viable alternative to radical Islam.’

For these reasons Iraq truly represents the central front for the war on terror. Was Al-Queda there before the invasion? No? So What.

All of the referenced to D'Souza can be found here, here, here, here, and here