A discussion over at AskMeFi about why there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in America since 9/11. The responses generated, among other possibilities, the fact that America has “played into” bin-Laden’s hand by invading Iraq and creating a “recruiting office” for terrorism. Invading Iraq, the argument goes, “…has massively increased instability in the region…” Which is intriguing, because I recall a Weekly Standard (?) article from about two years ago which maintained that stability is exactly the problem in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein provided stability like few leaders in modern history. Arafat? Same thing. Libya? Same thing. Saudi Arabia? Ditto. Look at most of the countries over there – ruled by monarchs, dictators, and tyrants, or the close relatives of same, often for decades. “Stability” is one of the causes of the problems in the Middle East. The sole exception, of course, is the only truly democratic nation in the region: Israel. The government of Israel can hardly be considered “stable” – it changes hands and parties on a regular basis, while simultaneously defending itself every single day from terrorists that strike at will any place. Stable? Not Israel. But Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, et al, were all “stable” for years and years. Instability is just what the region needs, according to the WS article. Wish I could find that piece now. Anyone else remember it?