Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 people. Officials suspected Iraqi involvement in the attacks, which were claimed by al-Qaida's Iraq branch.
So al-Qaida now has a full-fledged "Iraq branch," which can organize and launch extremely deadly terrorist attacks on neighboring countries.
Regardless of one's views on the level and quantity of Iraq/al-Qaida connections before the war (if any), it is indisputable that al-Qaida had no such branch and no such capabilities based in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion.
Even if one believes that there are lots of important benefits from our invasion of Iraq, isn't this development unquestionably a very undesirable outcome of this war?
No. It may, in fact, be the key to strategic victory for the West.
ReplyDeleteContrary to the West's conceit, we will never defeat al Qaeda and its jihadi allies. They derive from an ideology that has been developing for more than 100 years and seriously in the last 70. Victory will come only when that ideology is utterly discredited in the Muslim world. This is appropriate, because al Qaeda's war is essential an intramural struggle within Islam into which we have been dragged.
So, how to discredit that ideology in the Muslim world? There are many ways to do this, but the best is by forcing al Qaeda to join the battle locally. By invading Iraq, not only have we brought them into Iraq, but they have been forced into fighting Arab regimes through the region. Their irregular tactics force them to do some horrendous things and, more to the point, kill many more Muslims than infidels in any given attack (see Jordan). This creates many enemies of al Qaeda in the region. While many of these new enemies of al Qaeda do not like the United States, it does not matter: the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
We do not need to be loved by anybody in the Arab world. But it takes much more than dislike or even hatred to motivate people to strap on a bomb belt (otherwise, terrorists would come from all over the place). It takes an ideology. The only way to win is to utterly discredit that ideology, as we have discredited fascism and communism before it. By forcing al Qaeda to join the battle over there, as opposed to here, we are forcing them to launch their war within the Arab world much more quickly is called for by their grand strategy (which demands, first, that they push the West out of Muslim lands, and then, once that is accomplished, they will attack the apostate regimes in the region).
I am, by the way, less conservative than you suppose. I am no big fan of George Bush, but I think that he has the singular advantage of understand the nature of the war, even if he and his people screwed a lot of things up (which I think they did). My problem with the Democrats is that they are by and large living in a dreamworld (the big exceptions being Lieberman and HRC, either of whom I could vote for). I am particularly contemptuous of the "Cold Feet Democrats," most of whom voted for the war against their instincts but out of political fear. Now they have decided that they would rather claim that they are gullible than feckless. The "Bush lied" claims are absurd, frankly, and everybody knows it. It is far more principled to attack Bush on the conduct of the war, where he is deservedly vulnerable. There are two reasons why they don't want to do that, though. First, those who believe that Bush is a moron are going to say that it was inevitable that he would screw it up. Second, and more significantly, most people believe that the failure was in being insufficiently violent, rather than too violent, in the opening weeks. The Democratic pacifist base does not like that argument.
So, how to discredit that ideology in the Muslim world? There are many ways to do this, but the best is by forcing al Qaeda to join the battle locally.
ReplyDeleteSo, if I understand this line of thinking correctly, it's flawed thinking to believe that we want to reduce the number of Al Qaeda attacks. It's actually a really good idea to provoke as many of those fatal attacks as possible - we should just make sure that the slaughters all happen over there because then the people of that region will dislike Al Qaeda and they will be "discredited" and that is good for us.
That's a novel way to look at things: let's force Al Qaeda to kill lots of Muslims so that they won't be as popular among Muslims any longer.
I don't disagree with your genera premises about Al Qaeda's foundation, but do you really think that's going to reduce the threat which Al Qaeda poses? And isn't that sort of a somewhat inhumane approach to solving this problem? Should we actively seek to provoke more Al Qaeda attacks in the Middle East?
This creates many enemies of al Qaeda in the region. While many of these new enemies of al Qaeda do not like the United States, it does not matter: the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
But this is empirically false. Al Qaeda has been slaughtering Muslims for several years now - they have pulled off some spectacular attacks in Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Lots of Muslims have died. And while you're right that this has made Al Qaeda increasingly unpopular among some segments of Muslims, it sure hasn't seemed to make the U.S. any more popular.
The only way to win is to utterly discredit that ideology, as we have discredited fascism and communism before it.
But the interesting thing about Al Qaeda's tactics is that they don't require huge numbers of people, like a conventional army does. As long as they have a dedicated core willing to fly planes into buildings and sneak toxic bombs into crowded places, they will remain a huge threat. Denying them places to operate - such as a lawless Iraq - seems a much better idea than trying to provoke them into terrorist attacks so that everyone hates them and they run out of people to use for their missions.
I agree with Glenn's assessment of Tiger Hawk's solution.
ReplyDeleteI also want to say that I believe that the "Cold Feet" Democrats were operating in an environment where the Administration was saying that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Now I am not in a position to know what the Democrats knew before the war, but the entire country was under the assumption that of a nuclear threat from Saddam. That is patently false. I believe it is a good idea to vet the data from prewar intelligence and determine if the WHite House used it to scare voters and congress into war. I hate the fact that the Dems failed to vigerously question the reasons for war. I was against the immediate entry into Iraq while we were in Afganistan. Afganistan is still not a finished product, although we have left it in a better state than in the 1980's after the Soviet invasion.
The establishment of an Iraqi branch of Al Qaida shows the failure of planning in the orignal attack of Iraq. The failure to plan for contingencies in the case of a prolonged occupation. Rumsfield and Cheney looked for the answers they wanted and proceeded down their own path. Now they need to answer for their misguided plans.
Invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power is not an inherently bad idea, but it needed to be well planned and executed. The execution was there, the planning was not. Now we are left with the remains of an ill conceived, illegal, and immoral war against the "insurgants". Weird.
Of course, Tigerhawk, your rationale ignores the fact that Islamic fundamentalists have been staging murderous attacks on moderate Muslims since the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Somehow, al Qaeda became stronger through the subsequent decades.
ReplyDelete