Surprise, surprise: British think-tank the Oxford Research Group [ORG] says "the war on terror is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements." They suggest a "re-think" is called for, probably over a nice pot of tea (Report Says War on Terror is Fueling al Qaeda.)
Study author Paul Rogers described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "'disastrous mistake' which had helped establish a 'most valued jihadist combat training zone' for al Qaeda supporters."
The article concludes with the report's caveat to America not to engage Iran next.
"Going to war with Iran," Rogers said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."
Sad the day that a democracy must be reminded thusly. War should always be the last option, after all other options have been proven futile. Iraq was not an intractable problem until GWB decided to make it one. Iraq did not pose a threat to U.S. national security until after the U.S. invaded.
Due to GWB's bum rush, many U.S. citizens still cannot disentangle the concepts Muslim from Iraqi from terrorist. It remains a confusing welter, and all such good citizens can do is put up yellow ribbons, maybe send off care packages of needed toiletries to troops and obey a president who must know more than they.
Of course, it should be intuitively obvious that any foreign invasion of an Arab country will force all moderates and peaceful Arab advocates into an untenable position. Invasions provoke extreme reactions; this does not require research. A simple reading of history will show this.
Invasions lead to unconventional guerrilla wars of resistance. Here at Ranger, we are embarrassed to say such an obvious thing. What would Americans do if we were invaded by a superior military force? A middle school history book will reveal the answer.
Why are U.S. leaders oblivious to the obvious?