The Dangers of Oversimplification

Your Minister of Propaganda is in agreement with the Air Marshal concerning the rationale and methodology of the Bush administration concerning the Iraq war. He might however, offer another point of view concerning Iraq's contributions to terrorism. The Foreign Minister's easy linking of the War in Iraq with the War on Terror is exactly what the Bush administration would like all Americans to do, without the benefit of debate or contrary opinion. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has created more of a terrorist problem than it solved.

Your Minister of Propaganda served in the military and has no issue, moral or practical, with the killing of terrorists. He also believes that the U.S. military is excellently equipped and prepared for the task. Given the correct intelligence, our military has the technology and expertise for precise attacks on terrorist targets. This is the true battleground of War on Terror, and it's a war that we'll be fighting for the next 20 years. Tactically, however, we have sacrificed all of our military advantages over terrorists: providing security in Iraq requires massive amounts of troops (140,000, and growing) in fixed positions throughout the country. Now the terrorists have the upper hand: al-Qaeda can commit minimal resources against our most vulnerable targets, choosing to attack ill-prepared reservists rather than special forces operatives. Consequentially, our military is forced to take ever-increasing force protection measures that make is incrementally more difficult to actually win the 'hearts and minds' of everyday Iraqis.

It's a collosal strategic failure that our military would never have made unless forced. Only a blind belief in the neocon world order -- with Iraqis throwing rose petals in the street to welcome U.S. armor -- would have made Bush lack of war planning even remotely acceptable from a military perspective. The Foreign Minister, in his August 2nd post, jumps from generalization to generalization until is leads to a new, shiny Middle East. The reality, already, is far different. Our heavy-handed tactics in Iraq have instead given birth to a whole new generation of terrorists. The prison abuses, and the Bush administration's decision to abandon the Geneva Conventions in our dealings with the enemy, will haunt us forever. "Democracy" in Iraq, where they have no tradition like the checks and balances once visible in our system, will most likely lead to a theocracy like Iran and a civil war with the Kurdish minority. By overthrowing a secular Arab government, we've done exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted us to do: created a chaotic vacuum that looks to every Islamic observer like a imperialistic use of American power. Nice work, Wolfowitz.

Meanwhile, a slew of unanswered questions remain. If you're fully committed to the war on terror, why shift forces away from Afghanistan, where we know Osama bin Laden is still hiding? If you're truly committed to rebuilding Iraq and integrating it into the world community, why use economic contracts to punish the French and Germans for not supporting our invasion and instead funneling dollars to companies who support Bush's reelection? Why pressure Pakistan to capture 'high-value' terrorist targets specifically during late July, when the Democrats are having their convention? Why release a terrorist warning, like the Bush administration did yesterday, that is actually based on three-year-old intelligence? Why play such blatant politics with the most serious threat our country is likely to face for the next 50 years?

President Kerry is not going to withdraw from Iraq. Even if he shifted in that direction after the election, you can damn well bet that we'll have more debate than we did before invading. It's ass-backwards, but it's the situation that Bush has stuck us with. Your Minister of Propaganda strongly endorses voting him out of office. At the very least, it's an opportunity to back away from the self-serving and catastrophically dangerous jingoism of this administration.

Believe.