Christopher Hitchens on the misconceptions on al Qaida:
Fighting the Real Fight: Foolish Myths about al Qaida in Mesopotamia
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 13, 2007, at 12:02 PM ETIt is argued, first, that there was no such organization (al Qaida in Iraq) before the coalition intervention in Iraq. It is argued, second, that the character of the gang itself is somewhat autonomous from, and even independent of, the original group proclaimed by Osama Bin Laden. These objections sometimes, but not always, amount to the suggestion that the “real” fight against al-Qaida is, or should be, not in Iraq but in Afghanistan. (I say “not always,” because many of those who argue the difference are openly hostile to the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan as well as to the presence of coalition soldiers in Iraq.)
The facts as we have them are not at all friendly to this view of the situation, whether it be the “hard” view that al-Qaida terrorism is a “resistance” to Western imperialism or the “soft” view that we have only created the monster in Iraq by intervening there.
The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we can now gratefully describe as “the late.” The first thing to notice about him is that he was in Iraq before we were. The second thing to notice is that he fled to Iraq only because he, and many others like him, had been driven out of Afghanistan. Thus, by the logic of those who say that Afghanistan is the “real” war, he would have been better left as he was. Without the overthrow of the Taliban, he and his collaborators would not have moved to take advantage of the next failed/rogue state. I hope you can spot the simple error of reasoning that is involved in this belief. It also involves the defeatist suggestion—which was very salient in the opposition to the intervention in Afghanistan—that it’s pointless to try to crush such people because “others will spring up in their place.” Those who take this view should have the courage to stand by it and not invent a straw-man argument.
Hitchens pinpoints facts the Left blithely ignores; Al Qaida has thrived throughout the Middle East, thanks to support from the Arab/Muslim states (pick one). No matter where we exact vengeance, they will cross borders to get there.
Contrary to leftist doctrine, we did not invent terrorist groups. They existed long before our invasion, and simply crawled out of the woodwork when the “Great Satan” fought back. The 9/11 attacks served as a recruiting tool for al Qaida and the Taliban more than any retaliation. They saw the Towers fall, the Pentagon burn, and figured what the hell, we’re on a roll. They really didn’t believe we would have the gall to fight them on their own turf.
See what happens when you get Clinton for 8 years?
Kathy,
“Revisionist history requires a lot of semantics”.
I would add that those revisionists require alot of omissions, as well.
The problem the dems/enemedia have is they’ve been saying the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Then reports coming from Iraq say Al Qaeda leaders are being killed in Iraq.
So the press responds in two ways – first it blames the war for ‘causing more terrorism’ and second it tries to separate the branches of Al Qaeda as if they are discrete entities.
Otherwise the listener connects the dots – we’re killing Al Qaeda in Iraq -therefore the war on terror is IN IRAQ, and we were not in Iraq on 9/11 therefore terrorism was not generated by the Iraq war because we were not in Iraq on 9/11.
Revisionist history requires a lot of semantics.
Thanks, Debbie!
You say “Contrary to leftist doctrine, we did not invent terrorist groups.” They do try to make it look like al-Qaeda didn’t exist before we went into Iraq. Nothing like ignoring history.
Thanks for the comment at Right Truth. I hope you will visit again.