Sunday, July 20, 2003
The Next Debate: Al Qaeda Link
The invasion of Iraq, after all, was billed as Phase II in the war on terror that began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But was there ever a credible basis for carrying that battle to Iraq?
Don't misunderstand — we should all be glad to see the Iraqi people freed from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and the defeat of Iraq did spell the demise of the world's No. 4 state sponsor of international terrorism (Iran, Syria and Sudan all have more blood on their hands in the last decade). But the connection the administration asserted between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the organization that made catastrophic terrorism a reality, seems more uncertain than ever.[...]
Impression: I began reading this op-ed skeptically, both because of the title and implication ("oh boy, here we go again"),and because these are obviously two former Clinton admin guys with a political ax to grind. Not to mention being yet another pair of insiders who are frustrated at not being able to have their own take on matters become the dominant paradigm - so they call the papers, and in this case, rather than use the strength of their arguments, (as Ken Pollack did with his book, "The Threatening Storm") they are literally attempting to manufacture a scandal. As if this kind of thing under any circumstances actually contributes helpfully to the national security debate.
That said, and once you get by the fact that they miss the point of the "Iraq/Al-Qaeda" connection in any case. The worry is not so much that Saddam may have invited Bin Laden to share his palace with him, it is that they may have cooperated in a common goal, and further, the problem is not just Islamic Radicalism. It's the entire spectrum of Arab and Islamic radicalism and nationalism that Saddam was an integral and multiplying factor of that was and is the problem, now losing one of its bullwarks with the fall of the regime.
The piece makes some interesting points toward the end, its just too bad that it is so badly politicized getting there.
Update: BTW, anyone hoping for a minor shift in NYT editorial policy following the Raines departure can forget it based on today's paper. It's an all anti-administration page. Blood in the water a little too much to resist, I guess. Animal instinct is tough to keep in check.
