The common anti-war argument is that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists as thousands of enraged Iraqis are flocking to terrorist groups to to Abu Ghraib, civilian casualties, etc. This analysis has always been simplistic as it neglects that the US has done much to repair Iraqi infrastructure, win hearts and minds, and set the Iraqis up for sovereignty. Now StrategyPage reports that al-Qaeda is not having much luck with their Iraqi operations:
ions in Iraq have encountered unexpected problems. Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda’s suicide bombing campaign. Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely, than American soldiers, to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. The interim government is trying to convince the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah to back a military operation in the city to clear out the various al Qaeda, criminal and Baath Party gangs. But the gangs of Fallujah are quick to threaten any local leader that shows signs of supporting the government. While the Fallujah leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, and are providing information to the coalition, which has led to attacks, with smart bombs or coalition and Iraqi troops, on buildings used by al Qaeda, or other gangs, as headquarters.
While I still maintain not dealing with Fallujah earlier was a mistake, it appears that the Fallujah situation shows little sign of spreading. If even the residents of this terrorist stronghold are starting to fight back and assist the coalition and the Iraqi government in locating and destroying enemy terrorist hideouts, it signals that the terrorists have utterly failed in their goal of moving Iraq towards shari’a. The al-Qaeda plan of formenting civil unrest between the Sunnis and Shi’ites have failed. The plan of forcing the US to leave has so far failed, and now al-Qaeda is systematically trying to use hostages to undermine less resolved members of the coalition – yet even this may not be enough to stop the procedure.
The only way the terrorists can win is to get the United States to pull out – which is exactly why we will continue to see attacks against US and coalition soldiers along the lines of what we’re seeing, and if the terrorists believe that an attack against the US directly will engineer the kind of reaction that it did in Spain, they will attack here.
It is absolutely critical that both Bush and Kerry make it quite clear that they will not appease terrorism in any way and that we will not pull out our soldiers until it is absolutely safe to do so. We cannot budge on this point, and it must be made clear that we will not give credence to terrorist tactics. This is and always has been a game of resolve – the terrorists are becoming more and more desperate to achieve their goals in Iraq. We must do whatever it takes to see that never happens.
UPDATE: The Christian Science Monitor has more on how the terrorists are losing Iraq.
Al-Zarqawi’s worst nightmare is indeed coming true…
There is nothing that Kerry can do to make it clear he will not appease terrorism in any way…for the following reasons:
1) He would appease the terrorists; he has already stated that he doesn’t like to use the term “war” with regards to the war on terror; he has already stated he believes the war is more of a law enforcement issue; he has already stated his policy on North Korea is one of appeasement; in short, he has already signaled that he is the appeasement candidate. Given Kerry’s track record, appeasement appears to be in his blood.
2) Kerry must play up to the loony left; he is dependent upon them for much of his funding and support, and they do not want to hear hawkish talk. And certainly wimpy Kerry won’t do anything to rock their boat.
3) Kerry has no credibility when he makes claims anyway, especially ones that contrast with his past record, due to his history of pandering and flip-flopping.
In short, Kerry cannot signal “no appeasement” because “appeasement” is his middle name.
So, your argument is just that, because Iraqis aren’t becoming terrorists, our actions in Iraq aren’t making terrorists?
Think hard and see if you can see the glaring logical hole. Hint: it’s the hole all the Mack trucks are dropping through.
Seriously, Jay. You think the Arab world doesn’t have newspapers, or something?
The entire argument is facile to begin with – it’s the classic form of appeasement, not disturbing the alligator in the hopes you’ll be eaten last. The assumption that US actions create terrorism doesn’t hold – if that were true we’d have Chileans rather than Saudis flying aircraft into buildings.
The real answer is that the terrorism we face now is caused by a form of very old Islamic radicalism fused with the quasi-Marxist revolutionary ideologies of Fanon. Read Sayyid Qutb – he’s the one who is the intellectual founder of this form of Islamic radicalism. The fact is that they hate the West for what it is, not what it does. The argument that if we sell out Israel and allow it to be destroyed we’ll be safe is based on an ignorance of what the Islamofascist ideology is really about.
The Arab world doesn’t really give a damn about Iraq. Every time the US does anything there’s the same old tired arguments about the “Arab street” – we heard it when we attacked Afghanistan, we heard it when we bombed during Ramadan, we heard it when we attacked Iraq, etc. It’s never once amounted to anything, and it’s not about to in the future.
The fact is that most of the terrorists we faced aren’t the poor and oppressed. Osama bin Laden was a millionaire. Most of the September 11 murderers were well-off, able to study abroad in Germany where they met Mohammad Atta. This isn’t about poverty, about Israel, or even about the US. The Islamofascist ideology divides the world into Dar-al-Islam (The House of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb (The House of War).
Want to make sure we don’t create more terrorists? Chop up the Constitution and embrace shari’a. Put your wife in a veil, start stoning gays, and if either speak out, kill them.
Otherwise anything we do will only provide the illusion of safety.
Where’s you’re rifle soldier?
Oh, wait, you want to argue that only your side gets to talk about the military.
The entire “chickenhawk” argument either A:) is an argument for military dictatorship in which either only those who serve have the right to even comment on policy or B:) a shameful and pathetic way of dodging an argument with a cheap slur.
In any event, using it is an instant admission that you can’t come up with anything intelligent to offer.
Where’s you’re rifle soldier?
In my closet, ready to be taken up in the service of a just and useful war. Where’s yours?
Oh, wait, you want to argue that only your side gets to talk about the military.
No, I simply want to argue that people who make or promote policy without a proper understanding of the costs are irresponsible in the extreme.
And, as you can see from the above exchange, AT started it, anyway.
Which assumes that those who support the war don’t understand the costs? Bullshit.
If we accept that criterion, those who think that a little over 1,000 deaths in 18 months is a “quagmire” clearly don’t have a proper understanding of military strategy either – and believe me, such talk is deeply irresponsible.
Which assumes that those who support the war don’t understand the costs?
Or they simply don’t care about the costs when it’s happening to other people, or other people’s kids. With a modern military that’s essentially the “poor man’s army”, it’s ludicrous to expect the powerful to understand the costs in the same way Ma and Pa Kettle, with their “Navy Parent” bumpersticker, do.