The rhetoric of Iraq
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Iraq, News, The War On TerrorismLast week, the administration released an intelligence summary that warns Al-Qaeda is getting stronger.
The president pointed to this as proof that Iraq is central to fighting AQ. Asked if the report actually demonstrates that Bush’s efforts to defeat AQ aren’t working, he replied that things would be far worse if he hadn’t invaded Iraq.
Mull that over for a second. It’s a rhetorical get-out-of-jail-free card. You’re Bush, and six years later things are getting worse, not better. No problem! Just claim that things would really be dire if not for your brilliant leadership. It’s a completely unrefutable claim, because you can’t rewind history and try again.
Unfortunately for Bush, such a bald assertion relies heavily on his credibility on security matters. And he has (charitably) almost none left. He’s made so many blithe assertions that have turned out to be flat wrong that nobody believes him anymore.
This ties in with Bush’s continuing efforts to tie our opponents in Iraq to 9/11. During a speech at the end of June, he noted that the people we’re fighting in Iraq “are the people that attacked us on September the 11th.”
Except that for the most part, they aren’t.
(Continued at Midtopia)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 and is filed under Iraq, News, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:27 am
AQ is getting stronger primarily because of the Waziristan accords. Musharraf tried to appease the terrorists by withdrawing forces; they were allowed to reconstitute their ranks and launch new attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Is there a lesson to be learned there?
If the Iraq war helps to prevent the rise of Salfist Islam in the 21st century by fomenting a geopolitical paradigm shift in the middle east, whereby Arab states use their power to persecute terrorists rather than support them or turn away, then it will be well worth the investment. The fact that AQ and other Salafist groups have fought hard in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that the death-cult ideology is more inherently pervasive throughout the muslim world than people would like to believe.
If there “was no Al-qaeda in Iraq before we invaded” It proves that our forces were attacked by Al-qaeda, who chose to go on offense and come into the country and fight us on that turf. Why should we back down from that?
An LA Times editorial today says:
.
The rhetoric that AQ is getting stronger because of Iraq is not because of their military prowess there, on the contrary, Americans have not lost a single battle to AQ forces, nor have they failed to acquire any AQ-controlled territory when they try.
The rhetoric that we are losing in Iraq stems only from the daily casualty count of our troops and thats it – it has absolutely nothing to do with who is gaining ground or which side is losing in battle. When our elected leaders harp on this, it merely proves to AQ that we are Paper Tigers and “death-fearing weaklings of the West.”
If your worried about “hearts and minds” consider that regular Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere will never again assist us in fighting terrorists, because of the knowledge that we will eventually abandon them and they will have stand before the bloodthirsty barbarians and try to explain why they collaborated with “the Great Satan”
If AQ is getting stronger it can be argued its because we don’t have the balls to fight them hard enough, rather than, as Wesley Clark cravenly says, “Because of Iraq.”
July 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am
AQ is getting stronger primarily because of the Waziristan accords.
Agreed.
Musharraf tried to appease the terrorists by withdrawing forces; they were allowed to reconstitute their ranks and launch new attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Agreed.
Is there a lesson to be learned there?
Yes. Attack terrorists where they are (Waziristan), not where they aren’t (Iraq).
The rhetoric that AQ is getting stronger because of Iraq is not because of their military prowess there, on the contrary, Americans have not lost a single battle to AQ forces, nor have they failed to acquire any AQ-controlled territory when they try.
Battling insurgencies isn’t about winning standup battles or taking territory; it’s about winning hearts and minds and choking off the insurgents’ base of support. That base of support exists largely because of our presence there. People want us gone, and are willing to work with AQ/Iraq nutjobs to get it done, on the theory that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Militarily, our problem is that while we can take any ground we want, we then leave that territory and allow them to reclaim it. This is exactly the problem we ran into the last time we fought a counterinsurgency, in Vietnam.
The surge is intended to address that by finally implementing “clear and hold”, except that it’s not at all clear that the Iraqis are capable of “holding” and there aren’t enough U.S. troops to do it.
I don’t think many people are arguing that AQ is beating us militarily, which is why framing an Iraq withdrawal as a military defeat is stupid. If we withdraw, it will be because being in Iraq is causing more problems than it solves, while preventing us from addressing more pressing threats (like Waziristan).
But the main problem with your point is that Iraq is not Waziristan. In the tribal regions of Pakistan, conservative Islam holds sway and the Taliban and AQ enjoy considerable support. In Iraq, the majority Shiites and minority Kurds have absolutely no use for AQ, and even most of the Sunnis dislike them and their extremist brand of Islam as well. If we leave, AQ will not find fertile ground in which to take root; it will find itself under attack from Iraqis of all stripes.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I erred in the above reply by falling into the trap of characterizing the resistance in Iraq as “AQ.” It’s not. Mostly, we’re fighting native Iraqi insurgents. Yet another reason why our withdrawal could not be plausibly called a victory for AQ.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
They are in Iraq now.
Yes, and these people are Salafist, Taliban-like religious extremists, Baath party dregs who want to fulfil Saddams dream of an ethnically pure Arabian empire including the Saudi Penninsular, or Apocalyptic death-cult Shiites loyal to the Jew-hating Ayatollas.
There are also regular, peace-loving people in Iraq who are willing to tolerate an American presence to provide security and training, so as to foster a stable, democratic society where their children can grow up free of persecution from the nutjobs I’ve listed above.
We need to choose which side to enable, and devise a strategy that will carry it out effectively. I’m sorry, but there is no way Harry Ried or Nancy Pelosi can convince me that an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq will help the latter and not the former.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Yes, and these people are Salafist, Taliban-like religious extremists, Baath party dregs who want to fulfil Saddams dream of an ethnically pure Arabian empire including the Saudi Penninsular, or Apocalyptic death-cult Shiites loyal to the Jew-hating Ayatollas.
Not really. Much of the insurgency is staffed by tribal militia members who either resent our presence or have a bone to pick with the majority Shiite government. Most of the Baathists aren’t Arab Nazis; they’re simply people who had it good under Saddam and want that era back. The Shiites are another bag of tricks entirely.
Nice job demonizing and stereotyping anyone who shoots at us, though. Makes it easier to ignore them and the complexities of the situation.
I have no doubt a majority of Iraqis either don’t care whether we’re there or want us to stay. Just like most wars, most people just want to be left alone. That has little bearing on whether we should stay.
I support giving the surge a chance, and oppose an immediate withdrawal, only because it’s worth one last attempt to show we can make progress. But come September I expect hard questions, and a debate that doesn’t revolve around simplistic — or simply false — arguments like “we’re mostly fighting AQ in Iraq” and “if we leave, it will simply empower the terrorists.”