Is Iraq "A Fatal Battle Between Terrorism and Freedom"?

About's Guide to Terrorism, Amy Zalman, has zeroed in on what I did not articulate last night:

The speech was about establishing Iraq as the lynchpin in a fatal battle between terrorism and freedom.

I read her analysis today and said, "Yes! That's what spooked me!"

It's not a "new" claim -- Bush has insisted that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism since 2002, when he began making his public case to depose Saddam Hussein. But four years later, his rhetoric steadfastly absolves the US from responsibility for today's troubled country, torn apart by civil strife that is in part the result of US inaction:

Iraqi insurgents (more than Al Qaeda, at least in Baghdad) did upset post-election Iraq. But the U.S. failure to be able to provide electricity, water or basic stability after hostilities ended helped fuel an insurgency that had popular, as well as extremist, elements. Understanding this is not a matter of bashing the U.S. for the fun of it, nor about simply being right. The U.S. can't frame future actions if it will not accept what has happened and the role the U.S. played in the last three years.

In the story Bush tells of Iraq in this speech, American actions and presence play no role in having helped create the current quagmire. In his description, the United States is obligated, morally, to play the referee on a rough regional schoolyard where all of America's archenemies are at fisticuffs at once.

What do you think?

More reading:

• The President's New Plan for Iraq, Keith Porter, Foreign Policy Guide
• Iraq Fatal Battleground for Terrorism Vs. Freedom, Amy Zalman, Terrorism Guide
• Bush Sends at Least 20,000 More Troops to Iraq, Robert Longley, US Government Info Guide
• Iraq War Statistics, Deborah White, US Liberals Guide
• Bush's Speech: First Thoughts
• What A Difference Four Years Makes
• Bush Move Contrary to Iraq Study Group

Technorati Profile