'œTell me again,' said Leonard Pitts in The Miami Herald, 'œhow the Iraq war has made us safer from terrorism.' Ever since President Bush invaded Iraq two years ago, he's been assuring us that we'd be safer if we 'œtook the fight to the enemy.' Now, the London subway and bus bombings have shown the folly of Bush's Iraqi misadventure. The people we're fighting in Iraq are mostly local Sunnis, with no connection to 9/11; the war there has done nothing but divert attention and resources from our real enemy, al Qaida. 'œWe've poured more than $200 billion down the drain in Iraq,' said Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. Imagine if we'd spent 'œeven a small part of that money' hunting down Osama bin Laden and his inner circle, or plugging the many holes in U.S. security.
This 'œdistraction' argument is nonsense, said Charles Krauthammer in Time. Since 9/11, we've caught or killed hundreds of al Qaida operatives. Dozens of plots have been broken up. And bin Laden is now scurrying like a rat from cave to cave along the Pakistan border. But as President Bush has known all along, these efforts are vital but not sufficient, because terrorism is 'œa sickness incubated within Arab/Islamic culture.' Our best hope is to expose that bacillus to light and air, by bringing democracy to the Arab world. That's why we're in Iraq. Already, the elections there have stirred democratic movements in Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, and even Syria. It's these 'œenergized' Arab democrats who'll ultimately help us win the war on terrorism, by showing there's a good alternative to Islamic extremism.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
