Friday, May 11, 2007

Following us here

One of the more persistent justifications among the multitude of reasons we must stay 4 evah in Iraq is the ludicrous "flypaper theory," or some variant thereof: the idea that Iraq is now such an irresistible magnet for jihadists that fighting them there means we don't have to fight them here. This ridiculous claim offends for so many reasons: it treats Iraqis as subhuman props, it treats American troops as sacrificial lambs in an endless slaughter, and it is, if this matters, absurd on its face.

The reality, of course, is that our Iraq policy is a splendid tool for the purpose of creating and encouraging terrorists and terrorism in Iraq. The reality is that it would be difficult to conceive of a better method for fomenting terrorism, short of planning it ourselves.


He railed against the United States, helped scout out military installations for attack, offered to introduce his comrades to an arms dealer, and gave them a list of weapons he could procure, including machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

These were not the actions of a terrorist, but of a paid FBI informant who helped bring down an alleged plot by six Muslim men to massacre U.S. soldiers at New Jersey's Fort Dix.

And those actions have raised questions of whether the government crossed the line and pushed the six down a path they would not have otherwise followed.

I don't know enough to say whether the guys charged were as evil (and stupid) as the charges suggest. I am not defending terrorists or terrorism. But I do wonder if our de facto national effort to create terrorists abroad is now being imported. Cui Que bono? Let's watch who milks this story.

Update: TA corrects my Latin.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla is credited with the phrase "Cui bono", "To whose benefit?", literally "[being] good to whom?", while the meaning of "Que bono" is less clear. Some people write that it means "who benefits", but Que usually means What, in most interpretations. This may seem like a small point, but it is people who pervert, not things, not even institutions (abstract groups of people). People. That's why we have expressions like "If you would strike a King you had better kill the King." Not "the monarchy". The King. Or, "Cut off its head and the rest will wither and die." These common aphorisms are clearly intended to suggest a simple understanding of that which cannot safely be said in society today "Kill the bastards (at the top) and let us get on with our lives."

Not what, who?


11:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats