The Katie Couric Interview

"You have said we can't cut and run on more than one occasion. We have to stay until we win. Otherwise, we'll be fighting the terrorists here at home, on our own streets. So what do you mean exactly by that, Mr. President?" Couric asked.

"Well, I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy and will provide the enemy — more opportunity to train, plan, to attack us. That's what I mean," Mr. Bush said. "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it. But the American people — have gotta understand that a defeat in Iraq — in other words, if this government there fails, the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments. I truly believe this is the ideological struggle of the 21st century. And the consequences for not achieving success are — are dire"

I don’t disagree with the President here (which make me question my sanity a little. I think a loss there will embolden the terrorists, but I think we could have avoided that by not going to war in Iraq in the first place. I just think if he explained it differently he might convince others. Here’s how he should have explained it: All one has to do is remember how Al-Qaeda formed in the first place: during the Afghan war. The Precursor to Al-Qaeda was a rag tag group of insurgents fighting off a ‘superpower’, the Soviet Union. They fought and fought and eventually the Soviet Union left. They forced a superpower to back down. Now we are in Iraq. This same group of people is fighting us there. If we fight to a stand still or leave, they will consider it a victory. Not only will they have defeated the Atheist Soviet Union, but also the Great Satan of the United States. We have no choice but to stay till the bitter end. That is the lesson we learned from Afghanistan. The victory they earned in Afghanistan is what made them believe they could attack us on 9-11. That is what is meant by we must fight them there so we do not have to fight them here.

If this is what he means, then he’s right. Anyone who’s read the 9-11 Commission reports knows that this is the history of Al-Qaeda. This is the reason they brought the war to our home soil. They attacked our military bases, they attacked the USS Cole, and they attempted in the 90s to blow up the World Trade Center all because of the belief that having taken down the Soviets they could take on us.

This is why I don’t consider Bush smart. Either he doesn’t realize that this is why we have to stay in Iraq, or he does and neither he nor any speechwriter who works for him can put it into words.

This probably sounds like I support the war in Iraq. I don’t. If we had never gone there we wouldn’t be stuck there. If we had just continued to fight in Afghanistan and hunt Osama down, that would have sent a clear message to all those who seek to harm America. We should have had the picture of our soldiers pulling Osama out of a spider hole. The picture should have been of the humiliating exam of Osama not Saddam. That would have sent a message that America takes care of its own. Instead, the message we sent was, “Harm us and your neighbor better watch out.” I know that was glib, but come on! I heard someone say that the war in Iraq let’s “them” know that America will defend itself. Iraq never attacked us! We didn’t defend ourselves; we preemptively attacked them. On information that turned out to be false. Now we’re stuck in a war we cannot afford to lose. And if it does completely devolve into civil war and we leave, like some want us to, we better pray that Al-Qaeda doesn’t emerge victorious because we’d have to invade Iraq a second time. At least this time the preemptive strike would be warranted.