May 29, 2008
Was Osama bin Laden Right?
Given 20/20 hindsight, I've slowly come around the to argument that invading Iraq was a mistake. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq. That decision did not enhance our national security.We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing. America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.
---Osama bin Laden, October 2001
WHENEVER retreat-now activists or their favored presidential aspirant are confronted with our progress in Iraq, their stock reply is, "Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in 2003."I'm not sure why that erroneous decision should have any impact on the present debate over today's war in Iraq. If our national security is our paramount concern, then disengaging from Iraq would be disastrous.Well, I happen to agree with Sen. Barack Obama and his supporters on that count: At most, the terrorists had a tenuous connection with Saddam's regime. But it's 2008, not 2003. And our next president will take office in 2009. It's today's reality that matters.
This morning I was listening to Michael Scheuer on NPR (listen here), and he claims we've now fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's wrong. We've fought to a standstill in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Our final victory over Islamist forces in Iraq is now all but assured.
Ironic given that the initial argument by the Left against the Iraq war was that we needed UN approval and more allies in order to win there, you know, like we had in Afghanistan. That Leftist argument has been lost down an even deeper memory hole than the Right's WMD argument. At least the media challenges the WMD argument and the Right, for the most part, has come to terms with the fact that international estimates of WMD in Iraq were way off.
Peters makes the point:
To date, not one "mainstream media" journalist has pressed the leading advocates of unconditional surrender to describe in detail what might happen after we "bring the troops home now."Indeed.
Getting back to Scheuer who, like me, thinks the initial decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. His mistake is in the now outdated view that we can't win. But Scheuer did make a good point: Since al Qaeda's goal has always been inspiration, withdrawal from Iraq would be a moral victory for al Qaeda.
Here's what he said:
If it turns out that the 800lb gorilla withdraws with its tail between its legs, yet again, bin Laden looks like a genius rather than a destroyer of the jihadi movement.Many discussing the front page news that there are internal divisions within al Qaeda and the much discussed breaks with al Qaeda by influential former supporters have largely missed the point. These are breaks over tactics, not over goals. In other words, these criticisms of al Qaeda from within and without are not about the short term goal of creating Islamic states modeled after the Taliban, nor are they about the longer term goal of the reestablishment of the Caliphate. They are discussions over whether intentionally killing civilians is moral. Or they are discussions over whether or not such tactics are practical. Others question the tactical decision by al Qaeda to turn Iraq into the central front in its war against the U.S.
It should never be far from our mind that the view of the United States presented by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda is that we are not willing to fight the hard fights and that given enough bloodshed that we would withdraw our support from anti-Islamist regimes in the Muslim world. Withdrawal, whether it is in Iraq or in Afghanistan, will only bolster this view.
Peters, again, is right on:
If we nonetheless quit Iraq in 2009, the defeated remnants of al Qaeda will be able to declare victory, after all. The organization will be able to re-launch itself as the great Muslim victor over the Great Satan. We'll have thrown away a potentially decisive triumph and revived the fortunes of the fanatics who brought us 9/11.Should we withdraw from Iraq within the near future Osama bin Laden's estimation of the U.S. will have been proven correct. America will have been proved to be the "weak horse", and radical Islam the "strong" one.
Al Qaeda and their Salafi allies have always only had one demand in Iraq: that we leave. How can any self-proclaimed patriot actually suggest that giving in to our enemies' explicit demands is in our national interest? It's simple: a patriot can't. And yes, I'm questioning the patriotism of the Left.
It's one thing to claim we can't win and therefore fighting is just wasting American lives in a lost cause, but evidence suggests quite the contrary. We have defeated al Qaeda in Iraq and are now squarely on the path to defeating Khomeinist forces there as well.
Using a sports analogy, this is a game we should have never agreed to play in the first place. But once the game has started you can't truly call yourself a fan while simultaneously insisting that the team should forfeit and vacate the field.
Either support victory for the home team, or get the hell out of the stadium.
By Rusty at May 29, 2008 11:45 AM | | l digg this
