With so many Americans thinking with their hearts patriotically and not with their heads sensibly, not enough people are listening to the facts and considering the realistic global consequences of this war. And in addition to the ridiculous nature of U.S. politics these days, our foreign policy concerning Syria is nothing short of hypocritical. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Walid Moallem of Syria in the near future to discuss diplomacy between our two nations. But not even a month ago, Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Damascus and faced harsh criticism from the Bush Administration. It took a risky move by Pelosi to open Bush's eyes to the fact that diplomatic isolation is no long term solution. And now, the Bush Administration is going to take credit for re-opening the doors between Washington and Damascus.
Back to Iraq: in a recent speech by President Bush, he said, "For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11."
This seems to be the first time since the war in Iraq started that Bush is concerned about defeating al-Qaeda. And I would like to point out to a few Republican war hawks that even Bush has admitted to this being a "civil war". If al-Qaeda is really our prime enemy in the war on terror, then what are we doing in Iraq--a country with no proven links to terrorism until we invaded?
Bush also had this to say in an April 21, 2007 speech, "...we are trying to help a young democracy survive in the heart of the Middle East, and at the same time prevent our stated enemies [al-Qaeda] from establishing safe havens from which to attack us again."
As reported by CNN, "Terrorist organizations behind the violence [in Iraq] are setting up along Pakistan's northwest frontier in safe havens...this has led to more fighters pouring into Afghanistan..."
If eliminating al-Qaeda's safe havens is our goal then why did we leave our mission in Afghanistan? The United States' disorganized micromanaging and split loyalty agendas cannot compete with al-Qaeda's dedicated, single-minded and goal-orientated structure. With a new base in the mountains of Pakistan, world-wide publicity gaining followers (U.S.'s mishandling of war is no help), investments in Iraq and prospects in a looming war with Iran al-Qaeda is in a much better position than before we went to war with Iraq. This is not a very good realization.
What makes war-hawk Republicans think that invading Iran is defeating terrorism? al-Qaeda, has been supporting a U.S.-led war with Iran for some time now. Think about it: the U.S. goes to war again, Iran is a Shiite nation, al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group. It is a win-win for al-Qaeda if we go to war with a Shiite country that has even been expressing interest in meeting with Secretary Rice for a while now in attempts for a diplomatic solution to our differences.
CNN wrote on April 30, 2007 that, "Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported...The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25% from the previous year..."
If anyone thinks that this war has made the world a safer place, they are very wrong. War is what our enemies want and that is what we are giving them. While al-Qaeda formulates another 9/11-scale plot in the caves of Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are bickering in Washington about sending more troops into Iraq! It was America's legacy as the precedent of representative democracies to reason and see above the needless violence through diplomacy that placed us at the head of the pack. But now, we are nipping at the heels like all the rest and have given in to a far much simpler and undignified method of dealing with foreign policy.