If you build it, THEY will come

If America (attempts to) builds a democracy SMACK-DAB in the middle of the Middle East, it will attract every terrorist, terrorist-sympathizer, Islamo-Facist, and Anti-American Fanatic in the region or near-region. They will try to ensure that the fledging democracy fails, and that American soldiers are killed. Americans are learning that every news cycle with what is happening in Iraq. "Big deal," you'd say.

Well, what if I said that it is not exactly a bad thing? (Am I crazy? Am I an anti-war pro-fragging Ward Churchill protoge? No.) I am talking strategry-wise: is it really a bad thing that America has set-up camp in the middle of the Middle East and told the world of terrorist Islamo-Facist, "You wanna piece of me?!?" Well, it might be if the Islamo-Facists weren't coming in droves with TNT strapped around their backs.

Think about it. All of the bad people in the world, all the terrorists in Northern Africa, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine, etc. ... they are all flocking to Iraq in waves. That act alone takes away their most fearsome attribute = anonymity. Instead of hiding in some foreign, desert training camp, or cave, or assimilating into a Western nation as a cell, planning and plotting the next 9/11, they are going to Iraq and fighting the great Satan. It is like we set-up a fake-dunking-booth at the county fair just for terrorists, and the line to sign-up stretches out past the pig pens, and is growing.

Furthermore, instead of just letting the U.S. know their face in the mili-second while in an American soldiers cross-hairs, those captured are providing us valuable information. What kind of valuable information? Well, for starters, their nationality. That is all we really need to know. We determine how many foreign fighters are coming into Iraq (or Afghanistan, even), and then we know where the breeding ground is located. We know whether it is in a country already an enemy (Iran), semi-hostile (Syria), neutral (Jordan), semi-friendly (Saudi Arabia), or an ally (Pakistan). This information is then relayed to our State Department and Secretary Condi Rice, who can then go to these foreign states and say, "hey, did you realize that 45% of the inusrgents captured or killed are of nationality? Maybe you should think about: intra-state intelligence, securing your borders, educating your people, etc., if you want to maintain the semi-friendly/ally relationship you currently have with us?" In addition, if the majority of the foreign fighters are coming from our enemies, it provides evidence of their objective hostility, as well as more significant/specific intelligence about terrorist plots or weapons of mass destruction.

Securing Iraq's borders just might not be feasible. It might involve too many American soldiers, which would undoubtedly be unpopular in both the United States and amongst the Iraqi citizenry. The net result might be a decrease in conflict among foreign insurgents, but a net increase in conflict amongst the entire insurgency.

Thus, instead we have the pourous borders, and the lack of American soldiers, that give the foreign terrorists just enough confidence to join the jihad. Fortunately for us, the result is just what I described above. It is a "twaaaaaaaaap" as Admiral Ackbar would say, and -fortunately- the Islamo-Fascists haven't caught onto it.

UPDATE -

So, is this the elephant in the room? Has anyone in the administration given this as a reason for being Iraq? Of course not. Think about it: who would elect to have the carnage and devastation be on one's streets and one's cities and affecting one's citizenry and daily life, as much as it is and has been affecting that of Iraqis? They would never consent to being the site of this "dunk-tank" if they knew that to be the case. They would demand that the U.S. provide their best efforts at making Iraq safe and impenetrable. Instead the U.S. has not sent enough soldiers to do just that, and has not made securing Iraq's borders a number 1 goal, or even come close to accomplishing it. Instead, it has taken the, "gosh, these foreign insurgents are much more difficult then we thought," attitude.

Has this brought more "terror" to the streets of Iraq? Undoubtedly, yes. Is this disturbingly selfish? Yes and no. If this is the sole best way at dealing with the Islamo-Facist terrorists, then maybe not. Maybe it was selfish to set-up the "dunk tank" in Iraq, but the U.S. had to put it somewhere accessible for the terrorists. The United States is surely not accessible, and maybe Afghanistan wasn't that accessible either. Iraq, on the other hand is in the middle of the Middle East! Can you think of a more accessible location for the foreign jihadists to converge? Neither can I.