Sunday, March 21, 2004

Well, that depends on what your definition of 'improved conditions in Iraq' is...

While I decide whether hot miso soup or cold ice cream will be easier to eat, read this Salon article describing what's better and what's worse in Iraq. Alot of it is worse.

Based on the ABC/BBC poll, 17 percent of Iraqis think that attacks against U.S. coalition forces are acceptable. That's 17 percent of about 25 million people -- more than 4 million people, in all. When the Bush administration declares that it is winning the war on terrorism, it is obviously discounting the situation in Iraq. What's happening here is not a question of a few hiccups in light of the postwar transition.

This illustrates a fundamental problem with the Bush Administration's approach to the war on terror. Instead of focusing on the total destruction of terrorists at the expense of all else (including the truth as to whether or not they're actually terrorists, but that's another argument), they should be focusing on preventing new terrorists from coming about in the first place.

What has happened in Iraq is that 4 million new people now want to kill us. When you take a situation where there was little terrorist activity and create 4 million easy recruits for al-Qaida, that doesn't seem like any kind of a success.

No comments: