In George W. Bush’s latest speech on why this miserable war is worth fighting, the President stated that Islamic militants want to “overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”
Bush then suggests that the war in Iraq is necessary because Islamic militants want to create such a radical Islamic empire spanning from Indonesia to Spain.
Think about that for a second, and you’ll realize that there’s some trickery involved in that argument.
The trickery comes in the form of two unstated premises:
1) That the only alternative to Bush winning his war in Iraq is Islamic militants winning in Iraq
2) That if Islamic militants succeed in taking over Iraq, they will therefore be able to create a vast radical empire from Spain to Indonesia
The first premise is definitely open for debate.
The second premise is silly. It’s as silly as what Reagan said about the Nicaraguans invading the United States if we didn’t overthrow the Nicaraguan government. What, the Nicaraguans were going to invade and occupy Mexico, and then just roll through Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia to take our nation’s capital? Sure.
Here’s what Bush is counting on the American people not understanding: Enemy goals are not the same thing as enemy threats.
If General Pervez Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan, sent a videotape to Al Jazeera claiming that he intended to build a gigantic death star orbiting the Earth as a second moon, from which he would launch robotic space warriors to destroy the International Space Station, it wouldn’t make sense for President Bush to get on national television to say that America must invade Pakistan to avert the impending orbiting death star threat. That’s because Pakistan lacks the wherewithal to implement any orbiting death star robotic space warrior plan.
In the same way, Al Quaida lacks the capability of creating a radical Islamic empire that stretches all the way from just north of Australia to the Straits of Gibraltar. It’s silly of George W. Bush to suggest that Al Quaida ever could do such a thing. It’s shameful that Bush would make unsupportable leaps of logic in an attempt to frighten the American people. It’s a sign of desperation when Bush uses such extravagant claims in order to support a war that is logically insupportable.
As Tracy wrote last night, America broke Iraq, and it’s up to America to provide the means through which Iraq can be stable and peaceful. With all the death and destruction we Americans have caused in Iraq, we have a responsibility to make Iraq a better place than it was when we invaded it.
Tracy also suggested that war is not the only way to make Iraq a better place. She’s right – alternatives exist. However, President Bush is refusing to acknowledge those alternatives. Instead, Bush is counting on America to accept another unstated premise: That the war is working to make Iraq a more stable and peaceful place. The evidence indicates that this unstated premise is a sham.
I agree that America now has a responcibility to “fix” Iraq, but i sincerely hope we help by getting out of their way and letting them fix it themselves with our financial backing. i think we’ll probably spend the same amount funding the fix (including the attendant gouging, graft, and corruption among all parties concerned) as Bush will have spent on this red-herring, bait and switch war on anything but terrorism (including the American people, the environment, the economy, education, foreign policy, etc.).
America and western Europe have a share in creating the kind of extremist Islam that’s the problem here.
When America attacks the sovereignty and dignity of Arab culture trough all its invasions, bombings and support of brutal dictators, Islam becomes a symbol of all that is under attack.
And, at its radical fringe, it provides the rallying cry.
i keep asking:
what would happen if we spent 340 billion on goodwill missions in the middle east?
besides lowering haliburton’s profit margin, that is.