The Implicit Threat

[darrels joy]

The Implicit Threat
Yesterday we asked why President Bush, in his Tuesday speech, had not issued some sort of threat to the seven countries he mentioned whose nationals have been committing terrorist acts in Iraq. Several readers argued that he had done so implicitly. Here's how Miguel Lecuona put it:

I think the omission of a threat and consequences by the President (regarding Saudi Arabia being "with us or with the terrorists") was intentional. It was enough to mention that countries with which we are striving to achieve common cause have some rogue elements, and that the U.S. is taking notice. It will send the right message to Saudi Arabia, and its leadership will hear loud and clear that we are aware of Saudi nationals collaborating with the Iraqi terrorist "insurgency."

I would bet that it has been previously noted in private, and now it is being recognized in public. Condoleezza Rice will have the next move, so I expect to see her boots a-walkin' right on over to the nations in question with evidence, and steadily increasing pressure to rein it in or else.

Reader Chris Bartony offers a slightly different take:

I think the operative statements are the ones along line of "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Bush is in a tight spot and can't really say, "Listen, we're going to continue to allow the foreign fighters into Iraq. Yup, it makes bad headlines and nasty footage, but that's the way it's going to be for a while. We know how strong they are and they aren't strong enough to derail the effort. We're going to keep letting them come to Iraq to stir the pot so that our military can kill them. Don't worry, America, if they get too big or too strong, we'll snap the borders shut."

Isn't that a real possibility? We have to allow them to come to Iraq because we can't go into other countries to kill them. And until they arm up and come after us, it's tough to identify Joe Jihadi. I was all for closing the damned borders over there (and over here for that matter), but I think there's a method to the madness. The guys who make the trek to Iraq to fight us are dangerous (obviously), and in the absence of the US in Iraq, they would not be peacefully selling bric-a-brac in the local bazaar. We're saving them the cost of a very expensive one-way ticket to the U.S. or Europe by setting up shop in their neck of the woods.

And I think we get a double bonus out of this too. (When the time comes to make an issue of this, it's a good reason to drop the hammer on Mr. Assad or the fine mullahs in Iran.

Just a thought. But if it's true, it's just about impossible for the administration to admit it, isn't it? But if you take the theory as an assumption, then the "inability" to secure Iraq's borders and Bush's lack of threatening the regimes in question makes more sense.

Let's hope.
OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today - June 30, 2005