Now that neo-cons have all gotten onboard the "flypaper strategy" bandwagon, which suggests that we're using Iraq as a terrorist magnet, can't we get them to adjust their terminology a bit?
First, this was a war of necessity because Iraq had weapons and we didn't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Second, this was a war to obtain Iraqi freedom, because we're very much against torture and oppression (unless, of course, the oppressor in question is "with us," like Uzbekistan's President, Islam Karimov). Now, it's a way for us to keep terrorists from attacking us at home, by drawing them to Iraq, where they can be killed with impunity.
You know, it kind of makes sense. I've been wondering how in the hell the administration could not see that we either a) need more US troops in Iraq; or b) need to get the UN more involved, even if it means power-sharing. This could explain it, I guess: If we were trying to draw terrorists into Iraq and we had a sizeable force there, they might be scared off. Which means that our soldiers, if the supposed "flypaper strategy" were true, are being used as targets to attract terror.
Flypaper seems to me something of a bad simile here. I therefore propose that those who are suggesting that this theory is being tested in Iraq should have the decency to at least be honest about it.
This isn't about flypaper, but about using soldiers for "terror bait."
Is this really the way you want to defend Bush's policies?
Update: Digby has more.