- 10,832
The big problem with the war on terror, as wars go, is that there is no one country with a defined border we can go annihilate, declare victory, and relax again. Terror, as an entity against which we have declared war, spans the globe and is disguised. In my opinion, it can't be won, and the American administration knows it; it is, in the context of all of our lifetimes, a new, permanent fixture.
So that got me thinking about Iraq. The American administration has essentially equated Iraq with terror. Of course there were all the other reasons for going over there, and whether they have been accomplished or whether they are valid is irrelevant to my point.
Terror has increased since the Occupation of Iraq. Hardly a day goes by anymore without hearing about bombs in Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia. But we Americans are still safe and snug with no terror since September the Eleventh. I couldn't help wondering if this may not have been precisely the reason Iraq was attacked. Could it be that the American administration (not Bush himself; he is merely a mascot for the real players), while denying that the Iraqi war would exacerbate terrorism, knew full well that it would, and in attacking them aimed the gun of terror away from America and at the Middle East? Could it be that in their possibly intentional exacerbation of terrorism, the American administration has knowingly attempted to give the war on terror a country, a border (or at least an area), a place to focus, because without it they would've floundered? Could it be that the rash of attacks in Iraq were an expected symptom of a rooting-out, as it were, of terrorists? Is the rebuilding of Iraq merely a side effect of the real purpose, a terror concentration in Iraq where the US can implement the full force of it's intelligence and millitary powers to fight it, where they otherwise would not have been able to, in other words, a ruse? In Iraq the US can pretty much do what they want. Not so anywhere else. So antagonize terrorists into coming to Iraq where only the laws of war apply and they can get 'em good.
The situation in Iraq seems to be getting worse all the time. Was it supposed to? Is it part of the plan?
So that got me thinking about Iraq. The American administration has essentially equated Iraq with terror. Of course there were all the other reasons for going over there, and whether they have been accomplished or whether they are valid is irrelevant to my point.
Terror has increased since the Occupation of Iraq. Hardly a day goes by anymore without hearing about bombs in Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia. But we Americans are still safe and snug with no terror since September the Eleventh. I couldn't help wondering if this may not have been precisely the reason Iraq was attacked. Could it be that the American administration (not Bush himself; he is merely a mascot for the real players), while denying that the Iraqi war would exacerbate terrorism, knew full well that it would, and in attacking them aimed the gun of terror away from America and at the Middle East? Could it be that in their possibly intentional exacerbation of terrorism, the American administration has knowingly attempted to give the war on terror a country, a border (or at least an area), a place to focus, because without it they would've floundered? Could it be that the rash of attacks in Iraq were an expected symptom of a rooting-out, as it were, of terrorists? Is the rebuilding of Iraq merely a side effect of the real purpose, a terror concentration in Iraq where the US can implement the full force of it's intelligence and millitary powers to fight it, where they otherwise would not have been able to, in other words, a ruse? In Iraq the US can pretty much do what they want. Not so anywhere else. So antagonize terrorists into coming to Iraq where only the laws of war apply and they can get 'em good.
The situation in Iraq seems to be getting worse all the time. Was it supposed to? Is it part of the plan?
