Dan Froomkin rightly points out that the President is not entirely correct in his claims that the enemy will follow the U.S. home if it withdraws from Iraq. Certainly very few, if any, of the enemies the U.S. currently faces in Iraq will turn their attention to attacking the United States once the U.S. leaves. It's possible a few members of Al Qaeda in Iraq may try to do so, but the vast majority of those fighting the United States in Iraq will be quite happy to turn their attention to more immediate issues, whether that is killing Kurds/Shia/Sunnis to improve their sect's chances of controlling Iraq, trying to drive out the foreigners who have been fighting the U.S. in Iraq, or simply returning to a civilian life.
It will not end there, however. America's enemies are watching Iraq carefully to see what happens next. If the United States is seen as fleeing Iraq because it is unwilling to sustain the level of casualties it has seen over the past four years, America's enemies will be encouraged to challenge the U.S. in other areas, thinking that America is weak. Nations like Iran may be more inclined to press the U.S. even when it doing so may lead to war on the assumption that the U.S. either will not go to war because it's gun-shy after Iraq or that the U.S. will not follow through with war and so the risk is acceptable. Nations rarely go to war against countries that appear strong; most wars are the result of nations believing that their enemy is weak and will fall easily. If America's enemies draw that perception from Iraq, the U.S. may see itself challenged more often on the world stage in the future.
This is not an argument for continuing the war indefinitely. Regardless of how the U.S. leaves Iraq, it has already gained a number of new enemies among Arabs and other Muslims who believe the U.S. made war on Iraq to go after Islam or to keep the Arabs down, causes which have inspired we-don't-know how many jihadis to take up the sword. Whether or not the war in Iraq has killed terrorists faster than it has created them is an open question, but even if the math is in the U.S.'s favor, the terrorists it is creating outside Iraq will remain a problem long after the U.S. has left Iraq. It may be that an attack on the U.S. ten years from now will turn out to have included terrorists who decided to attack America on the basis of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, a sad turn of events that will, if we aren't careful, lead to yet another war that inspired new grievances.
Most of those who will follow the U.S. back to the western hemisphere have already been inspired to do so. But how the U.S. leaves Iraq will have some impact on the number of people willing to go great distances to kill people. Whether it is the Bush administration or whomever takes over for him, the President who orders the U.S. to leave Iraq needs to think long and hard about how that is accomplished to minimize the damage it will cause in terms of inspiring still-more hatred towards the U.S.
Comments (2)
the President who orders the U.S. to leave Iraq needs to think long and hard about how that is accomplished to minimize the damage it will cause in terms of inspiring still-more hatred towards the U.S.
True, but I find it hard to believe that leaving Iraq, no matter how we leave (barring some intervening miracle), won't be seen by the Arab world as jihad triumping over the crusaders. I mean, look how long we were in Vietnam and how Nixon managed the exit of the troops, but does anyone seriously doubt that we were driven out of Vietnam?
I mean, perhaps we can try and prevent would be terrorist masterminds like bin Laden from drawing the wrong lessons from a U.S. withdrawal, as opposed to the wider Arab world (and I think bin Laden drew the wrong lesson from Somalia - you might be able to poke a tiger with a stick from a place the tiger isn't interested in being anyway and he'll generally ignore you, but if you walk up and kick him in the balls in his territory, don't expect him to lie there) - but I don't see it working on the so called "arab street."
I think the proper calculation might be - how many Muslim's are currently inspired by our continued presence in Iraq vs. how many would be inspired if we left. I'm guessing the former outweighs the latter by a not insignificant amount, and the longer we stay the bigger the difference.
Anyway, I suppose I can pray for that intervening miracle.
Posted by Ugh | March 20, 2007 12:12 AM
Posted on March 20, 2007 00:12
I can remember the argument being made that leaving Viet Nam would make us look weak and that some unnamed country somewhere would then be enboldened to do something.
I'm more concerned about the consequences to the Sunni population of our departure than I am about the blow to our national vanity.
In fact, I am so concerned about this that I would be a war supporter if the other war supporters were willing to face up to the question of how to pay for the war and otherwise sustain the effort.
Right now I don't see an alternative to planning our departure sinnce those that argue that we should stay are not planning realistically for the long run. If we are serious about staying we need to decide how to pay for it, decide how to support thhe effort without using the same soldiers tour after tour after tour, decide how to support the war we actually needed to fighht inn Afganistan, and decide how to win Iraqi hearts and minds. I don't see any leadership on any of that from the Bush administration or the Republicans inn Congress. Even war supporter blogs such as Victory Caucus, Q and O, No End ButVictory, refuse to face the first three items onn my list.
So since so many war supporters are onnly willing to support with rhetoric the reality is we are going to lose annd leave. So we mighht as well plan for it.
Posted by wonkie | March 22, 2007 10:23 PM
Posted on March 22, 2007 22:23