Headache upon Headache

WOLF BLITZER of CNN recently asked secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld about widespread concern that the war in Iraq would help al-Qaeda recruiting and, in general, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States. Rumsfeld’s answer was rather alarming. He just barely managed to conceal his contempt for the scribblers and eggheads who have expressed such thoughts, and launched into an energetic argument that it is weakness, not strength, that abets terrorism. His case in point was 9/1 1—which, he veritably thundered, had not required an invasion of Iraq as motivation.

Rumsfeld is at least half right. It is true that Islamist terrorists do not need specific new provocations before they kill more Americans. It is also true that weakness does often invite attack. It’s the half that isn’t right that is frightening. If the war against Iraq and the war against terrorism are closely related, as the administration insists, then the relationship must work both ways. Just as Iraq’s regime has clearly supported terrorism and deserves to be an American target, so the longstanding sanctions regime and no-fly zones directed against Iraq form part of the Islamists’ complaint against the U.S.; it is plainly not true, in the Islamist mind’s eye, that the U.S. did nothing to provoke the 9/11 attacks.

About the Author

Adam Garfinkle

Mr. Garfinkle is editor of The American Interest and author, most recently, of Jewcentricity: Why the World Praises, Blames, and Uses the Jews to Explain Nearly Everything (Wiley, 2009).

Featured Tags

WOLF BLITZER of CNN recently asked secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld about widespread concern that the war in Iraq would help al-Qaeda recruiting and, in general, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States. Rumsfeld’s answer was rather alarming. He just barely managed to conceal his contempt for the scribblers and eggheads who have expressed such thoughts, and launched into an energetic argument that it is weakness, not strength, that abets terrorism. His case in point was 9/1 1—which, he veritably thundered, had not required an invasion of Iraq as motivation.

Rumsfeld is at least half right. It is true that Islamist terrorists do not need specific new provocations before they kill more Americans. It is also true that weakness does often invite attack. It’s the half that isn’t right that is frightening. If the war against Iraq and the war against terrorism are closely related, as the administration insists, then the relationship must work both ways. Just as Iraq’s regime has clearly supported terrorism and deserves to be an American target, so the longstanding sanctions regime and no-fly zones directed against Iraq form part of the Islamists’ complaint against the U.S.; it is plainly not true, in the Islamist mind’s eye, that the U.S. did nothing to provoke the 9/11 attacks.

About the Author

Adam Garfinkle

Mr. Garfinkle is editor of The American Interest and author, most recently, of Jewcentricity: Why the World Praises, Blames, and Uses the Jews to Explain Nearly Everything (Wiley, 2009).