Republicans are Still Outspinning Democrats on Iraq:
It's way past time to rephrase the question.
by Chuck Kelly
It's driving me nuts. On TV and radio talk shows, supporters of the Iraq war always start the discussion with "Are we better off because Saddam is no longer the leader of Iraq?" Then they make the following points:
Saddam was a very bad leader who brutalized his own people The Iraqi people are better off without Saddam The U.S. is safer because Saddam is gone, and One more source of world terrorism has been neutralized.The other person in the debate than tries to minimize the above points and cites all the problems we're running into: American casualties, the huge financial costs, and so on. At best, the discussion ends up in a draw.
What needs to be done to turn this around? Anti-war advocates must immediately, every time, repeatedly, and with emphasis, point out that Iraq is not the issue. And whether or not we're better off without Saddam is not the right question.
The question we should be discussing is: What is the best use of our human and financial resources for fighting terrorism, and providing for our homeland security? Phrased that way, the question becomes a slam-dunk for those opposed to the war in Iraq.
National security is our No. 1 priority and it should by now be clear to everyone that Iraq is far down the list of concerns when it comes to fighting terrorism. Consider:
The reason the U.S. supported Hussein in the first place was that he was the only one we felt was ruthless enough to pacify all the warring factions in that region. Now who are we going to put in charge? Al-Qaida was not active in Iraq until we "won" the war there. Now Iraq is a magnet for terrorists. Iraq was never an imminent threat to the U.S., or even to its immediate neighbors. For all practical purposes, we've abandoned Afghanistan and chosen to ignore the problems in Pakistan""the real centers for harboring and encouraging terrorists. And this doesn't include other obvious problems like Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, and on and on, throughout our troubled world. From all accounts, we've under-funded our obvious first line of homeland security: local police, fire departments, border patrols, accident and emergency units, and so on. Last, but not least, we've overextended ourselves financially to the point where we are endangering our future ability to meet the real terrorist threats when they emerge""right here at home.The most important part of any debate is to make sure the right question is posed. If the question is biased from the beginning, and both sides accept it, there's no way the debate can be rational.
So, the next time someone wants to debate whether or not invading Iraq was morally right""or what will happen to Iraq if we get out as soon as possible""I wish someone would point out that that's not the issue.
The issue is: What is the best use of our human and financial resources for our homeland security? It's definitely not to bankrupt ourselves in a low priority cause. Even if it were possible to make Iraq a model of the ideal democratic secular/Moslem country, we don't have enough resources to do it, and still meet our obligations to our own citizens.
Chuck Kelly is at http://www.KellySite.net. He holds a Ph.D. in industrial communications from Purdue University, is now a retired management consultant, and author of the books, THE DESTRUCTIVE ACHEIVER, THE GREAT LIMBAUGH CON, and CLASS WAR IN AMERICA. This article is originally published at opednews.com. Copyright Chuck Kelly, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached
