Sunday, September 28, 2008

How Iraq War Defeatists May have Made our Country Safer

McCain said something during the debate that got me thinking about the role that Obama and the other Iraq War defeatists have played in our national security. McCain mentioned the one thing that General Petraeus and Bin Laden agree on is that Iraq is the front line for the war on terror. It is generally accepted that most of the Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq entered after the start of the war. It is also clear from Bin Laden's periodic cave correspondence that he is well informed on political squabbles going on in the states and around the world. He routinely repeats defeatist talking points to rally the faithful. Iraq has become a lightening rod for Al-Qaeda insurgents, but why? It is my speculation that Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders see Iraq as somewhere they can win. Where did they get that idea? In addition to the human inclination to be blinded by our ambition, most of the US and world media along with half of our politicians were saying that the war was not winnable and that we should pull out.
Al-Qaeda could have attacked the US again; in fact it did make several attempts that were thwarted at various stages of preparation. The US became much more difficult to attack; to do so would require tremendous resources and a great amount of time. Even if Al-Qaeda succeeded in some kind of attack, unless it rivaled 9/11, it would be difficult to classify it as a significant victory. Iraq on the other hand is much easier to infiltrate, though as the nation grows stronger, Al-Qaeda is having a harder time getting in. However, if they can manage to force the US out of Iraq in defeat that would be seen as a major victory.
Defeatists in our own country, particularly major political figures like Obama, have fed the belief that Al-Qaeda could succeed in knocking US and coalition forces out of Iraq. This has led to Al-Qaeda devoting all its effort and resources to that country. Could the abounding defeatism be part of a bipartisan plan to keep Al-Qaeda focused in one area? If so, I would be very impressed. Whether intentional or not, I think we have to give the left their due in making our country safer.

Afghanistan is likely to become the primary lightening rod now. As Iraq stabilizes and victory for Al-Qaeda there becomes less likely, Afghanistan makes the most sense for Al-Qaeda to focus on next. How things will play out there as US troops shift there from Iraq remains to be seen, but let's hope that those on the left and right can good cop/bad cop there way into continuing to weaken Al-Qaeda.

1 comment:

Dan said...

Interesting points. I hadn't thought about how the left has helped us, however unintentional it may have been.
I think that Al-Qaeda is a very good measure of where our focus should be. Obama (unless he is part of this potential bipartisan defense effort ;) should really take a look at what they are saying as he has been pushing to refocus on Afghanistan. If our efforts there were in as much danger as Obama seems to think, then why is Bin Laden still focusing on Iraq? I realize that he may feel compelled to bring in Bin Laden but it seems to me that he has become a fairly flaccid leader since being on the run and I would rather have an ineffective leader of Al-Qaeda in exile rather than an unknown powerful leader controlling things from elsewhere in the world. The left has accused Bush for putting personal vendettas against Hussein above national security, but isn't Obama doing exactly that by pushing for us to focus on capturing Bin Laden and leaving his Al-Qaeda successor a new base of operations in Iraq (which is way more ideal than Afghanistan).