We Didn't Invade Iraq to Liberate Their Footwear

Several commentators have taken the shoe-throwing incident as some kind of symbol of America's progress in Iraq. See, they argue, in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, such behavior would be rewarded with torture and dismemberment.

Fair enough. But America never invaded Iraq so they can have the freedom to hurl footwear at visiting dignitaries. We invaded to prevent Saddam Hussein from passing weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda terrorists.

The arguments about the "messy" democracy taking root in Iraq are very much besides the point. Where is the evidence, for instance, that the opening of political dialogue in Iraq is making any of the jihadists in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Europe any less willing to harm Americans or Western interests?

Instead, as a consequence of our decision to invade and occupy the country, jihadists are "bleeding out" of Iraq with valuable urban and guerrilla warfare techniques, which they will pass on to a new generation of anti-Western terrorists.

A democratic Iraq would be a watershed in terms of human rights for the Iraqi people. But for such a development to justify the invasion, Iraq's democratic government would have to deliver national security gains commensurate with the costs to America in blood and treasure. A free press and flying footwear are good things. They won't prevent the next 9/11.