"As far as Iraq, the important thing is that the Taliban is gone in Afghanistan, three-quarters of the al-Qaida leadership is either dead or in jail, and we now have Saudi Arabia working with us, Pakistan working with us"
About this Quote
A politician’s sleight of hand: asked about Iraq, Peter King answers with Afghanistan, al-Qaida, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. The move isn’t confusion; it’s choreography. He’s bundling unrelated wins (or at least, claimable wins) into a single impression of momentum, so the listener’s brain does the convenient work of association: if the “war on terror” is going well over here, then Iraq can’t be a mistake over there.
The intent is reassurance through inventory. “Taliban is gone,” “three-quarters,” “dead or in jail,” “working with us” - each phrase is built for headline arithmetic, not nuance. The specificity (“three-quarters”) signals intelligence-grade certainty while staying safely unverifiable in the moment. “Working with us” turns complicated, often transactional relationships into a moral alignment, as if geopolitical cooperation is proof of strategic righteousness rather than shared self-interest.
The subtext is defensive: Iraq’s legitimacy is wobbling, so the argument shifts from the war’s premises to its supposed downstream benefits. It’s also a subtle reframing of accountability. If the metric is disrupted networks and cooperative allies, then the original Iraq question (weapons, rationale, occupation costs) becomes almost impolite - a distraction from the larger campaign.
Contextually, this sits squarely in the post-9/11 rhetorical ecosystem where “terror” functions as a master category. Once everything is part of one fight, any success anywhere can be used to launder doubt everywhere else. That’s why it works: it trades causality for vibe, and the vibe is competence.
The intent is reassurance through inventory. “Taliban is gone,” “three-quarters,” “dead or in jail,” “working with us” - each phrase is built for headline arithmetic, not nuance. The specificity (“three-quarters”) signals intelligence-grade certainty while staying safely unverifiable in the moment. “Working with us” turns complicated, often transactional relationships into a moral alignment, as if geopolitical cooperation is proof of strategic righteousness rather than shared self-interest.
The subtext is defensive: Iraq’s legitimacy is wobbling, so the argument shifts from the war’s premises to its supposed downstream benefits. It’s also a subtle reframing of accountability. If the metric is disrupted networks and cooperative allies, then the original Iraq question (weapons, rationale, occupation costs) becomes almost impolite - a distraction from the larger campaign.
Contextually, this sits squarely in the post-9/11 rhetorical ecosystem where “terror” functions as a master category. Once everything is part of one fight, any success anywhere can be used to launder doubt everywhere else. That’s why it works: it trades causality for vibe, and the vibe is competence.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List
