Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:23:32 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than hoping
that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work.

While this sounds good and noble on its face, it doesn't really work
in the real world. Lyndon Johnson's plea to "reason together" isn't a
good prescription for the elimination of terrorists. When Islamic
terrorists attack the US, destroy the WTC, damage the Pentagon and
attempt to destroy the White House and Capital, you can't simply say,
"Oh, we didn't know you were so upset. What can we do to make it
right."

A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our
economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us
down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't
and arguably can't win their "hearts and minds." You kill them and
create a political situation that can allow the masses of Arab people
some hope for a democratic future. (Note the evolution of democracy in
Iran which has seemingly turned the corner from rule by the mullahs
and now seeks a return to progressivism.)


This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses. Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.
We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins the
next election leaves office.

But, if step one (ouster of Saddam) hadn't taken place, would there be
even the glimmer of hope for a government based on democratic
principles?

I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November

The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist
movement. It also sounds good on its face. But, the principle that
violence increases fails upon historic examination. The violence of
Hiroshima didn't beget more violence, it toppled the regime and
created a free and democratic industrialized economic powerhouse. The
violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence,
it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org