Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Jim, do you notice the contradictory situational analyses by leftists. On the one hand they maintain that if we had not invaded Iraq, Isis and all the upheaval in the Middle East would not have happened. Yet, on the other hand, the success of the surge was not a stabilizing factor against upheaval and the withdrawal of troops was not a cause of it No, no . . . the upheaval was going to happen anyway. Maintaining troop presence would not stop it, and removing that presence was not a cause of it.
If all that was inevitable, what did invading Iraq have to do with it?
Is there finally a subtle admission that the Middle East has been heading in this direction for a long time. Well before the Iraq War. I recall even as far back as the 1970's the prediction that the Middle East was warming to the boiling point which would start WW3.
But the history of war is such that if war is taken to all out victory actual change is forced to occur. And, perhaps, the Iraq War, if expanded to an all out one, when the West was much stronger and more unified, there could have been a destruction of those elements that are now becoming a much larger threat than imagined by little minds, and are coalescing with or aided by larger anti-Western powers like China and Russia.
But the narrative can't go quite that far. It must somehow make the Iraq war not a corrective attempt to stop what was brewing, but the cause of it. And yet maintain that withdrawing from Iraq did not satisfy the trouble makers who would take advantage of the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam to become stronger.
But if Saddam was thwarting the "extremists" rise to power, why would not an even stronger force such as the U.S. military stop it. No, somehow it was all inevitable. But not inevitable enough to occur without the U.S. toppling of Saddam.
The rise of the so-called "extremists" was growing, gathering power and gaining leaders who expanded operations and enlistments for decades. The extremists were getting bigger and more influential in the 1990's to the point of becoming an ideological force that needed attention and elimination. And Saddam was not stopping that growth. Nor were the other Islamic States.
So the U.S. presence was, as the narrative now goes, on the one hand, a minor pause in the growing jihad which was going to happen whether we stayed or not, and on the other hand, the cause of it.
Right.
|
"Jim, do you notice the contradictory situational analyses by leftists"
Oh, I notice it, and can never quite get used to it or understand it. Protect The Narrative at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the argument, even if it means denying that the word "hating" means what exactly every human older than 5 years old, knows that it means.