Hot Air has the must-see video of their exchange with reporters (Byron posted an excerpt of the transcript here). Allah’s right: The most compelling thing about the video is Karzai’s genunine astonishment at the idea that anyone could forget about the kind of terrorist problem we faced before the invasion of Iraq was ever conceived.

I’d like to point out that U.S. policy toward Iraq also contributed to the terrorist threat before 9/11. When Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, one of his key greivances was our policy of sanctions and containment toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — the policy that opponents of the invasion wanted to continue. So let’s say we left that policy in place. Al Qaeda would still be committed to our destruction.

The argument that invading Iraq has worsened the terrorist threat is based on the claim that, even though al Qaeda leaders would still be committed to our destruction, it would be harder for them to recruit willing terrorists if we were not occupying Iraq.

As Jonah says, that’s probably true. But in addition to his point that our current policy will make us safer in the long run, let me add that if we had continued our policy of sanctions and containment, we would have:

  • Fewer targets in the Middle East for the jihadists to attack, making it more likely that they would attack us in the United States. And by targets, I don’t mean our soldiers. I mean the struggling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq that the jihadists are putting all of their energy into destroying. Although jihadists do target our soldiers, that’s only because our soldiers are standing between them and their real targets: control of Iraq and Afghanistan; and
  • The very real threat that international support for sanctions on Saddam would crumble, or that he would find ways to acquire the weapons he desired regardless, thus making him much more difficult to contain.

Had the U.S. left Saddam in power, we wouldn’t face fewer threats. We would face different ones. Those who declare that we are “less safe” for having deposed him would have a stronger case if they acknowledged the trade-offs, and the safety we gained when our military put him out of business.