• read more:
• « older
• newer »
•  · 
• home
• archives
• about
• contact

I'd Rather Fight Terrorists

Here is a simple response to the President and his supporter when they trot out the silly phrase, I'd rather be fighting terrorists in Iraq than [location x] (insert any location), made over two years ago for you to use:

IT'S SIMPLE REALLY, to know where you'd rather fight the terrorists. It's considerably harder to fight them. Which is why this hoary cliché needs to be retired once and for all. For there's two things to keep in mind when declaring where in Iraq you'd rather fight the terrorists.

The first, is that we're not altogether sure we are fighting terrorists, in the al-Qaeda sense of the word. As Newsweek recently reported in a piece entitled "War In the Dark," "what the Americans don't know is who, exactly, they're fighting." In a week in which four suicide-bombing attacks in Baghdad killed more than 30 people, one general told reporters "that the attacks were the work of 'foreign fighters.' Yet just 24 hours earlier his division commander . . . told a news conference that he had not seen 'any infusion of foreign fighters in Baghdad.'" A recent Washington Post story reported that at one Baghdad briefing, the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, in the dark himself as to the identity of the guerillas, said that 90 percent of the fighters the U.S. had killed or captured were Hussein loyalists or Iraqi religious militants--and only 10 percent were freelancers from abroad. Meaning that, according to his calculations, there's a decent chance that if we weren't fighting these particular terrorists in Babylon, we wouldn't be fighting them in Bakersfield.

Frankly, I'd rather be fighting terrorists. But we invaded Iraq instead. Funny.

Comments

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)