"DPU: That would be an accurate comparison if al Qaeda had conquered Iraq rather being a non-entity there prior to the invasion.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
The US has fought more than one war in Iraq since 2003.
Let me put it this way. The war against Saddam in Iraq was a war of choice and arguably a distraction.
The war against Al Qaeda (etc.) in Iraq was not a war of choice and was not a distraction.
My parents, for example, opposed the war against Saddam in Iraq but support the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Others, like Andrew Sullivan, supported the war against Saddam in Iraq and oppose the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq. All tehse (sic) people correctly view the wars as separate. You should, too, if you want to understand my point."
I agree the "battles" being fought from the initial invasion in 2003 up until Saddam's capture (and to be fair, that should probably be bumped up to sometime during the beginning phases of the new Iraqi Government) is light years different than what has been waged over the past couple years. But, the Bush Administration used Al Qaeda (partially) as the bait to gain support for a war to uproot Saddam, and had to know that Al Qaeda would eventually (though not prior to) become a factor at some point during our adventure. Strategies have changed, troops have been moved around, but this was part of the plan, make no mistake. Flypaper strategy, motherfuckers. This is all the same war; different phase yes, but the same war. When getting cute to make a simple point by declaring this an entirely different military intervention, you cloud the entire purpose of the event itself defined by those who created it.
There's no way when looking at now-unemployed Donald Rumsfeld's smirk that this was only about Saddam. No. Fucking. Way.
No comments:
Post a Comment