Giving bin Laden what he wants

[UPDATE (6/4/2003): I'm leaving the text of this entry the way it was originally written, as many of the points contained are still valid. I wanted to note, however, that after reviewing the actual transcript of the interview conducted by Sam Tannenhaus, I noted that Wolfowitz did not actually say that removing the troops from Saudi Arabia was one of the reasons for invading, but that it's one of the things that is now different because of the war.

[UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: I sent a note about this to Spinsanity, as it is something that appeared to fit the kind of things they usually write about - turns out that, while the Reuters article did not present Wolfowitz' statement as accurately as they could, removing the troops from Saudi Arabia was, in fact, part of the pre-war justifications. Here's a copy of the response I got from Spinsanity:

Thanks for passing this on. I've been following this debate and wanted to let you know that Tannenhaus did follow up on this point
and confirm that the situation in Saudi Arabia was part of the strategic equation going into the decision to go to war, rather than just a post facto benefit. See Josh Marshall's post making this point at talkingpointsmemo.com. It's farther down in the conversation due to an interruption. I do think the Reuters quote is
probably unfair, though, in saying Wolfowitz was specifically calling it
an "unnoticed but huge" reason to go to war. Here's the passage in
question:

Tanenhaus: So this notion then that the strategic question was really a part of the equation, that you were looking at Saudi Arabia --

Wolfowitz: I was. It's one of the reasons why I took a very different view of what the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East. I said on the record, I don't understand how people can really believe that removing this huge source of instability is going to be a cause of instability in the Middle East.

In my post yesterday on the quotes available at Billmon's blog, one of the one's I included was from Paul Wolfowitz. He has stated that the reason the administration chose to focus on the Weapons of Mass Destruction as their justification for the war was because it was the only one "everyone" could agree on, so it worked well from a bureaucratic perspective. He has also, however, cited a second, less-noticed justification: that overthrowing Saddam would allow us to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. And, as I had noted back on May 3rd, we have announced that we would be doing exactly that.

This is important - especially as it is now being cited as one of our reasons for going to war in the first place - because it was the stationing of those troops in Saudi Arabia that was Osama bin Laden's initial justification for going after us. He felt that having our Western troops there with our Western ways was a violation of the Islamic Holy Land, and was willing to do whatever he felt he had to in order to get us to leave.

Of course, by now, he has several other reasons for continuing to go after us, but what this admission means is that one of the main reasons we went to war - even though it wasn't included in the justifications given to the public - was to do exactly what bin Laden has wanted us to do right from the start - get our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Sadly, in the process we have also done him two other favours as well. Bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein almost as much as we do, and had released tapes encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam, calling him an infidel. Thanks to us, bin Laden no longer needs to worry about Saddam Hussein. In addition, we've created enough animosity in Iraq - and other areas of the Mideast - to help ensure a long line of al-Qaeda recruits for the foreseeable future. Our actions have made so many over there angry, they are now far more likely to be willing to take up bin Laden's cause as their own.

At some point - hopefully soon - when I have the energy to do the necessary sourcing searches, I'd love to put together a list of our accomplishments so far in this war. I know many will point out that we've liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and that is, without a doubt, a wonderful thing - but beyond that, it's pretty much been a stinking disaster.

We can't find the weapons of mass destruction we said justified an immediate war; we've let nuclear information, materials and possibly the equipment needed to make something of those materials disappear at the hands of unknown looters, winding up who-knows-where; we've agreed to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia - something bin Laden has long wanted - and are now admitting that being able to remove those troops is one of the "quiet" reasons we wanted to topple Saddam in the first place; we've gotten rid of Saddam which is something else bin Laden wanted to see; we've created a climate that is likely to produce many more terrorists over the coming years; we've let looters steal many priceless and historically valuable artifacts from the Iraqi museum; and we've left the Iraqi people in many areas without functional electricity, fresh water or accessible medical care (this last also due, in large part, to the looting we failed to stop) and turned some parts of Iraq into areas so beset by crime that some Iraqis are now afraid to leave their homes.

As I noted before, I don't believe that we should leave our troops in Saudi Arabia just to avoid giving bin Laden what he wants. I just find the whole situation very troubling - especially seeing that, so far, it looks like bin Laden has probably gotten more out of our war in Iraq than either we or the Iraqis have.