A few years back, the White House was trying to convince the American people that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and there wasn’t. But now there just may be. Unfortunately, it may be all our fault.
An al-Qaeda linked terrorist group claimed responsibility for the assassination attempt on Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Salam al-Zubaie. I find that to be an interesting, albeit unsettling, piece of information. Al-Qaeda now has influence in Iraq. They didn’t have a presence there before, but now they do. Our enemy, a terrorist organization that is our number one target with this War on Terror, is spreading. They attacked us. We attacked back. And now they’re in places they haven’t been before.
Under the Hussein dictatorship, there was no probable way for al-Qaeda to have any influence in Iraq. Hussein and Bin Laden were ideological opposites. Hussein was more secular. Iraq was more westernized. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s enemies are westernized nations. Enemies, not allies.
It worked the other way around as well. Hussein didn’t make any alliances or attempt any alliances with al-Qaeda. All of Hussein’s enemies within Iraq were oppressed or killed. Therefore any semblance of al-Qaeda members or members of groups with connections to al-Qaeda would have been killed, which means, odds are they stayed clear of Iraq altogether. You never heard of any al-Qaeda attacks on Iraq while Hussein was in power. And now, after we have gone in and liberated the Iraqis, our number one enemy appears and spreads into an area where they have no been before. As a result of the Iraq War, we have opened a gateway for al-Qaeda to enter and infiltrate.
Although, Vice President Cheney claims pulling out of Iraq will embolden our enemies, staying there seems to be doing much of the same.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think the problem with just about every criticism of the U.S.-led war in the Middle East is that they don't form their arguments conceptually. In other words, according to these critics "Saddam Hussein" is a different enemy than "the Taliban," and "al-Qaeda" is somehow separate from all of them. If only this were true... things would be much easier.
The problem with the Middle East is that all anti-Western elements are a threat for exactly the same reasons. They oppose what the West represents conceptually, and it makes no difference what they call themselves; they could be called the "united liberation front," and if they still opposed individualism and capitalism, they would be the same enemy.
What makes the Middle Eastern elements so important is that they are all vying for control of resources instrumental to Western economic security: namely, petroleum. Now, despite what most people believe, economic security is no different than national security, and frankly, I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea for 6th century dictators to be in control of Western energy interests.
The problem is that most people don't think this way. If they did, no one would have to give "other reasons," like WMDs and so forth. They would jump into war based solely on ideological threats. Of course, in WWII, this is exactly what we did; we went to war with Germany because of the ideological threat it posed. Sadly, no one thinks in conceptual terms anymore.
Saddam Hussein was a different enemy. He wasn't part of a theocratic dictatorship. He's not the same as the Taliban. He had no ties to al-Qaeda. The only way they can be grouped together is they're both from Asia.
We went to war with Germany because we were attacked by Japan, we declared war on Japan, and because Germany (along with Italy) was an ally of Japan, they declared war on us. Not even to mention that we were allies of Britain, who was under heavy fire from the Germans.