While I am not a fan of the manner the current administration presents, spins and obfuscates the talking point that
"We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here", this statement is not as ridiculous or as inaccurate as some in the media are making it seem. Actually the statement just might be one of those uncomfortable truths that most people are only able to accept when they do not question or examine events too deeply.
The fear-meme is at least true in part but not in the way it is usually presented. America did not go to war to stop the march of Terrorism, but rather to divert and provide a new focus for what was already there. Invading Iraq, even though that country's leadership had nothing to do with the 2001 terror attacks in the United States is a tactic that has worked in the past and can be called a
diversion of resources. Most recently this was applied in the last few decades in Europe in the form of the Cold War and even the Star Wars program, which nearly bankrupted the Soviet Union in their attempt to keep up. Vast resources were diverted on all sides to play a game of "one step forwards, one step back" in the European theaters, resources that could have been applied more effectively against America in the form of economic and political terror. Britain and other countries worried about their safety and security and America assisted in their efforts against the Red Menace. With the front of the non-battle raging in Europe, Russia was unable to focus entirely on America.
Something similar is currently taking place in Iraq. The invasion and liberation of Iraq has caused the focus of terrorist, criminal and special interest groups to shift their attentions from the stronghold of what they consider to be the enemy to their own backyards. True, by adjusting the troops and re-focusing Intelligence away from Pakistan to Iraq and other countries there has been a resurgence of the terror organizations that were once all but broken and made extinct. This is intended as they are most active and operating in nearby regions far from American shores.
By the Coalition maintaining a threatening presence in Iraq many countries have reaped the benefits of a destabilized region. Resources are diverted to the region and terror activity is on the rise, activity that may have once been directed elsewhere. Unfortunately for our place in history, in this instance maintaining the security of one country comes at the horrible cost of another. While the world itself may have become arguably more dangerous since the start of the Iraq war it is the Coalition members that are, for now, reaping the benefits of sacrificing the people of another nation for their own security under the guise of liberating an oppressed people.
That another country is mired in a war may be a price that many Americans, the UK and others are willing to pay. That some countries are using Iraq in this way does not diminish the sacrifice of the soldiers. They have pledged to fight for the security of their country and that is in fact what they are doing, though many are unable to see it that way. Their sacrifice is not in the least diminished by the questionable judgment and actions of the leadership, who appear too busy lining their pockets and pandering to the gullible to do their job, but their behavior does cast a long, cold shadow over the efforts of the soldiers fighting and dying for the cause.
I, for one, am not willing to "fight them here" at the cost of the lives of my family or those of my neighbors' family. That is my uncomfortable truth and I recognize it for what it is. But rather than admit that is it preferable to let another nation unwillingly make the sacrifice for our peace governments find it is far easier to demonize, marginalize or ridicule the people of the middle east than accept that they are equals as human beings who are perhaps being used most cruelly. Many pundits have and still graphically show or report stoning, beheading and other human rights violations or cultural differences that Americans find horrific, distasteful or savage.
This is done to make it easier for outside cultures to take the moral high ground while simultaneously letting the besieged country remain as a battle ground in war because they are "not us" and are perceived as "primitives". The consensus is that they are no worse off for having the "blip" of civilian casualties because after the crisis they will be better for the struggle. A parallel would be Democracy taking the place of Christianity during the expansionist efforts of the last several centuries, where missionaries smashed and rebuilt from scratch ancient cultures in the centric belief that their society benefited from the forced change. The sad fact is that it was really about control and exploitation, not salvation, and most of the cultures vanished forever, unable or unwilling to adapt.
I'd like to think that the America I grew up in would not lead another country that had not acted as an outright aggressor into ruin to protect our own borders, but it may be that doing so is one of the ugly facts our generation must eventually face. There were similar choices and actions taken in World War 2 that many are just now exploring, questioning and coming to terms with. Hopefully, we will continue to outgrow believing such tactics as being necessary to ensure our own survival and create other solutions to maintain our way of life that do not include bombs and bullets.
Tags: Iraq War
