Part 9 of a retrospective series on why 1) the Iraq war was a bad idea, and 2) Jonah Goldberg is a putz.

Iraq as the central front in the war on terror

In his next paragraph, Goldberg does get something right, but then he gets something very wrong. Let's start with what he gets right:

Those who say that it's not the central front in the war on terror are in a worse state of denial than they think Bush is in. Of course it's the central front in the war on terror. That it has become so is a valid criticism of Bush...

(emphasis added). That is indeed a valid criticism of Bush, assuming, of course, that Iraq is indeed the central front in the war on terror. It was not the central front in the war on terror until after we invaded. Furthermore, as I and others more knowledgeable have said before, 1) Iraq became the best--and free--training ground terrorists could have hoped for after the fall of the Taliban in Afganistan, and 2) the Iraq war (which is still ongoing) is helping, not hurting, terrorists. So Goldberg makes an accurate assessment, but then he goes and says something stupid again, namely that Iraq's status as the central front in the war on terror is

also strong reason for seeing our Iraqi intervention through. If we pull out precipitously, jihadism will open a franchise in Iraq and gain steam around the world, and the U.S. will be weakened.

Here's some more news flashes, Skippy:

1. Jihadism has already opened a franchise in Iraq. How do you think Iraq became the central front in the war on terror?
2. Jihadism has gained steam around the world because of the Iraq war.
3. The U.S. has already been weakened.

Up next: The Burning Bush doctrine and more disregard for facts.