Iraq is about to fall to Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda groups have already taken two cities, and they continue to advance and expand. The government is crumbling and the Iraqi troops are fleeing. Al-Qaeda will soon control the entire country.
How is this possible? Simple: there’s no dictator there to stop them.
Putting it coarsely, the reason groups like Al-Qaeda didn’t have Iraq decades ago is because Saddam wouldn’t let them. But Bush solved that for them, at the cost of a trillion American dollars, 5,000 American lives, and 1,000,000 Iraqi lives. All to promote a fragile government inside a country full of people insistent on murdering each other.
Allow me to propose a controversial idea:
Perhaps the very presence of a dictator—like Saddam, or Musharraf, or Assad—is the single most powerful piece of evidence that said dictator should not be removed.
Countries that are able to stand on their own, without a dictator…remove their dictators. They start a democracy. They revolt. They take action on their own to move the country to a higher form of government.
If this hasn’t happened, it’s likely because the country is not unified enough to do so. And if they’re not unified enough to remove the dictator, they’re not unified enough to manage the vacuum that will exist when he’s gone.
The sickening irony is that now that Saddam has been removed and isn’t there to counter Al-Qaeda’s takeover of the country, Iraq will soon actually become an international threat.
We’ll probably have to send troops.