Ixion is correct to state that there is no war on terror, at least not an honest one. Of course the US government should pursue Osama. No one should seriously dispute that. However, it is absurd to argue that Bush and the neocons were motivated by a desire to make Americans safer from terrorism; rather, they were motivated by a lust for a corporate empire in which US military power would be used to expropriate Iraq's natural wealth and place it in the hands of Bush's corporate cronies. This is an argument which I have presented on DU's home page both
before and
after the invasion. The argument has held up a lot better than any neocon or other right wing rationale for the invasion.
Broadly stated, Saddam was no threat to US security, had no weapons of mass destruction and had no ties to terrorist organizations; moreover, the Bushies knew this and deliberately lied during the run up to the war in order to justify it. Conclusion: the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
Shapiro's main point is about Zarqawi. Unfortunately, as Skittles suggests, Zarqawi was not operating as effectively in Saddam's Iraq as he is in US colonial Iraq. As an Islamist, Zarqawi was as much the secular Saddam's enemy as he is ours. He was as much a fugitive from Saddam perverted justice as he is now from the perverted justice in US colonial Iraq. Yet it is only since the invasion that Zarqawi has been able to operate on a large scale.
Broadly Stated, this suggests that Saddam was more effective on keeping a lid on international terrorists attempting to use Iraq as a base of operations than the US colonial occupation has been. The conclusion is that the US would have been better served by not invading Iraq. This supports a thesis that the invasion of Iraq, in addition to having nothing to do with the stated purpose of fighting terrorism, was actually a blunder in respect to fighting terrorism. It has opened opportunities for international terrorists seeking to use Iraq as a base of operations that were not there before.
This is not to say that Saddam was not a corrupt, brutal tyrant or that Zarqawi is not a dangerous terrorist who should be put out of business. However, US colonial occupation is also a form of brutal tyranny. While Saddam tortured Iraqis in Abu Grhaib, so does the US colonial administration; while Saddam attacked Iraqi civilians from the air at Halabjah, the US colonial rulers of Iraq attack Iraqi civilians from the air in Fallujah and Mosul. While Saddam used the oil-for-food program to support his own lavish lifestyle, the US colonial powers in Iraq seem
unable to explain how they are spending US funds for reconstruction while overcharging the government, not employing Iraqis and living lavishly in the Green Zone. Meanwhile, most Iraqis experience long periods of power blackouts, safe drinking water is hard to find and the streets are not safe.
Conclusion: As bad a life was under Saddam, the US invasion has not made Iraq a better place to live, work and raise children. It is at best only marginally better, and arguably worse.
As for Zarqawi, he needs to be stopped. However, US colonial occupation is his reason for being. Consequently, a US colonial government, even if it stopped Zarqawi, would never be able to put down an anti-colonial insurgency. The end of Zarqawi would just give rise to another rebel-terrorist to fill the niche as long as this environment is maintained. A truly sovereign Iraqi government would stand a better chance to put an end to Zarqawi. The question is: will there ever be a truly sovereign Iraqi government as long as US troops occupy the country?