Who wins if we lose in Iraq?

[dude1394]

This blogger continues to impress me. He's mildly partisan but mostly practical. He's also very data driven. Just a joy to read. He's been very solid on tracking what Al Queda is doing and their impact.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...e-in-iraq.html

Peter Galbraith has a new article in which he says:

The Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the President nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this.
...
Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today—a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.


You can define defeat that way if you wish, but I don't. I hope the Iraqis choose not to have a civil war when we leave, but if they decide to kill each other until one side succumbs, that's their decision. And if that's how it turns out, it will mean that Bush's vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East was, at best, premature and, at worst, completely wrong-headed. But it won't mean that we lost any war. On this point, I even differ from Hugh Hewitt, who says:

Victory in Iraq --the creation of a stable, functioning representative government protected by a strong Iraqi military capable of and committed to the suppression of terrorism and sectarian violence-- would be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, and although it would also be in the very best interests of the country as a whole, the left sees a political disaster in such an outcome, and has hence redoubled its efforts to tarnish not just the president who ordered the war, but also the generals who lead it, and the soldiers who fight it.


Such an outcome would, indeed, be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, but, in my view, it is a mistake to equate that outcome with victory (and the absence of that outcome with defeat). Victory involves quashing an enemy upon whom we have declared war (e.q., the Iraqi army in 2003) or who has openly declared war on us (e.g., al Qaeda in Iraq in 2007).

Just to briefly recap the basics:

1. we invaded in Iraq to eliminate the WMDs we thought Saddam possessed and to offer democracy to that country (on the theory that this would help to counter the warped ideology that currently dominates the Middle East).

2. Saddam had no WMDs, and democracy was progressing in Iraq despite a low-level but futile insurgency waged by the former Baathists. Some called this a civil war.

3. then al Qaeda decided to wage war against America by sending their suicide bombers to Iraq. Once they did, everything changed (e.g., civilian casualties tripled), and we found ourselves in a new war against them, one that we will either win or lose.

Al Qaeda could have chosen to wage war against America in Afghanistan (which is where Democrats oddly think that all the "real terrorists" are), but they didn't. They chose Iraq instead, and that's why dozens of foreign suicide bombers stream into that country (not Afghanistan) every month. Their brutal but ingenious method is to slaughter innocent Shiites and destroy their mosques because the ensuing chaos demoralizes Americans and suits al Qaeda's jihadist objectives. Once you appreciate this, you realize that defeat is defined not by Iraq's failure to embrace democracy but by America's armed forces being evicted from Iraq by al Qaeda's suicide bombers.

The most interesting point Gailbraith makes -- the one that most reveals what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening in Iraq -- is this:

But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran.


Implicit in this claim is the mistaken belief that al Qaeda is on one side of this civil war (namely, the Sunni side). I have long marveled at how critics of the war in Iraq are stuck in the civil-war quagmire. As I have mentioned many times before, and as Zarqawi clearly explained in his intercepted letter, al Qaeda is not fighting on one side of this civil war. This is true even though al Qaeda and their foreign suicide bombers are made up of Sunnis and even though they are, in fact, killing Shiites in large numbers. Instead of fighting on one side of the Sunni-Shiite civil war, al Qaeda's goal is to incite civil war. That is, they attack Shiites and their mosques, not to defeat them, but to provoke the Shiite militias into killing Sunnis. Why? Because they know that it will cause people like Galbraith to join the likes of Harry Reid in declaring that this war is lost. Sadly, they are right about that. In a post from almost a year ago, I called this the world's most dangerous theory:

more at the link...

another choice bit.

Isn't that just amazing? The evidence supporting Bush's position on al Qaeda in Iraq is absolutely overwhelming, and I have been making the case on this blog for a long time before Bush or the U.S. military started to make the case publicly. If you have any doubt about the strength of that case, please read through my detailed posts here, here and here. I know perfectly well that you are not actually going to read them, but you should at least know that a mountain of relevant evidence is reviewed in those posts. By contrast, the evidence weighing against Bush's position is non-existent. All you really have on that side of the debate is expressions of skepticism. Haven't you noticed that?

Why do Democrats and reporters keep pointing out that al Qaeda is a bigger problem in Iraq because of our presence there? Obviously, al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is much larger than it was before we invaded. That's because al Qaeda has declared war on us there. In a similar way, our own military presence in Iraq is much greater than it once was because we declared war on Iraq's army. That's how it works when one side declares war on another. They send their armies to fight. After that happens, one side usually wins and the other side usually loses. Is this complicated?

I assume that Democrats and reporters say things like that because they believe that listeners will reason as follows:

"Gee. If al Qaeda increased their presence in Iraq because our soldiers are there, maybe they'll simply decrease their presence and become less of a problem if we just leave."

Is that what you think? If so, you should spell out the rationale behind this fantasy (one that no Democrat will actually spell out for you). Al Qaeda does not share this rosy analysis. Instead, they have detailed plans for Iraq, and I'd like to know who you think is going to stop them. After all, right now, 160,000 American troops, the Shiite militias and the Sunni tribes of the Anbar Province are all fighting against al Qaeda in Iraq. Despite that, their suicide bombers kill hundreds of Iraqis every single month (including this month, unfortunately). The idea that al Qaeda will run short of suicide bombers when we hand them a propaganda victory of historic proportions is not credible. Unless we withdraw completely, which no one is recommending, we will still have soldiers in Iraq drawing the jihadists like flies. And even if we did depart altogether, we'd still have soldiers in Afghanistan. The crazed jihadists do not make a big distinction between the two countries, so the primary motivator will still be there. Is there some fantasy according to which any of this is not true? If so, I'd like someone to spell it out for me. Better yet, I'd like someone to point me to the Democrat who has thought through these details and explained his or her vision of al Qaeda in post-withdrawal Iraq. Unfortunately (and incredibly), there are no such Democrats.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This blogger continues to impress me. He's mildly partisan but mostly practical. He's also very data driven. Just a joy to read. He's been very solid on tracking what Al Queda is doing and their impact.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...e-in-iraq.html



more at the link...

another choice bit.

Terrorists are not born as terrorists. They become terrorists because for a reason, maybe not a reasonable reason, but still: there are no born terrorists.

If the troops leave, there will be chaos, but if they stay Al Qaeda will have more and more troops willing to go out and kill some Americans.

The number of troops the US has send to Iraq is not as large as the number of Iraqi people that have died because of this war. - But still, Al Qaeda seems to be stronger than before they started this war.

And last but not least, before the invasion there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are everywhere...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Terrorists are not born as terrorists. They become terrorists because for a reason, maybe not a reasonable reason, but still: there are no born terrorists.

If the troops leave, there will be chaos, but if they stay Al Qaeda will have more and more troops willing to go out and kill some Americans.

This is supposition, maybe...maybe not. If al queda is defeated in Iraq what will happen?

The number of troops the US has send to Iraq is not as large as the number of Iraqi people that have died because of this war. - But still, Al Qaeda seems to be stronger than before they started this war.

They are not stronger at the moment. They certainly marshalled their forces there and we didn't seem to have a way to deal with them, it appears that we have a more strategic plan at the moment.

And last but not least, before the invasion there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are everywhere...

but there were al queda in the US and Al Queda in afghanistan. I have to agree that the islamic folks have been rallied to the cause, I'm not sure it still isn't the correct one to be honest. I see no proof that the theatre wouldn't have been afghanistan or some other place if not iraq. Al queda is not going away until defeated.