MemeMachineGo!

That site has an argument for our involvement in Iraq that is the most clear I have heard so far, and just about the only one that I find morally defensible. In short, taking the war to the Middle East is our only viable option for countering the asymmetrical warfare of terrorism. We can confront the terrorists on our own terms there, and give them an obvious target that is more capable of defending itself. Put simply, every terrorist who attacks an army convoy in Iraq is one who isn't attacking an office building in America.

Had the government used this rationale for the Iraq war to begin with, they might have met less resistance than they did with the obvious nonsense of "Iraq might have WMD's somewhere, and they might have something to do with Al Qaeda".

Of course this still begs the question of why the terrorists were motivated to attack us in the first place. But other countries, including just about all of Western Europe, have been dealing for decades with terrorists who don't speak any language other than violence, and who don't understand any response other than force. Had we presented our operations as a pure power play rather than a crusade, most of the world would have at least understood the rules by which we were operating.

That'd make a lot of sense if all the world's terrorists were in Iraq and couldn't get out, and there were some sort of conservation of terrorists, as if no more were being inspired by our actions and our presence there.

As is, I think it's bugfuck.

True, the terrorists aren't confined to Iraq. But most of them come from the Middle East, from which it's easier for the average suicide bomber to get to Iraq than to the United States.

Likewise, although there is no direct conservation of terrorism, potential attackers are indeed going to take notice if they think that the most likely response of the US to an attack is to drop a mechanized division's worth of firepower on their village. They may not care for their own lives, but some of them do care for the lives of their families and children.

Once again I will grant that this is not a perfect solution. It won't do a damn thing to stop a Timothy McVeigh, for example. And as Israel has learned, you can flatten a whole town in response for each terrorist attack, and that still won't guarantee your safety. In fact, in the long run it's likely to make things worse.

I'm not saying I accept the government's rationale for invading Iraq. But after reading that article, I came a little closer to understanding why some people considered it the right thing to do.