Al Qaeda in Iraq Posted by David Schanzer

I argued on Tuesday that national security issues will continue to be a cornerstone of the 2008 election and that Democrats will need a more developed message to prevail than simply being "anti-war."

A big part of that message needs to be how Democrats intend to deal with al Qaeda -- and not just al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where all the Democratic candidates seem eager to send more troops to engage in the fight -- but also al Qaeda in Iraq, where the organization has a very robust presence, is killing American troops, and will continue to foment serious problems for the foreseeable future. 

Democrats seem to have an allergic reaction toward speaking about al Qaeda in Iraq.  (The words "al Qaeda" were uttered only twice by candidates in the South Carolina debate, one by Clinton discussing the 2001 attack on al Qaeda and the Taliban and once by Kucinich noting the lack of a pre-war al Qaeda/Iraq connection).

Perhaps we fear that mentioning al Qaeda in Iraq would ratify the fraudulent position taken by the Administration about a pre-war operational connection between al Qaeda and Saddam.  Perhaps we don't mention al Qaeda's presence in Iraq because it makes it more difficult to explain our position on troop withdrawals.  Whatever the reason, continuing to deny or ignore the reality that al Qaeda is causing grave damage in Iraq plays right into the Republican attack that Democrats "do not understand the full nature and scope of this terrorist war against us."

The crazy thing about our hesitance is that we have a devastating story to tell about 1) how the Bush policies created an al Qaeda problem in Iraq when one didn't exist prior to the war, 2) how the mismanagement of the war allowed al Qaeda to gain a stronghold in Iraq and strengthen its organization and capacity, and 3) how Democrats are proposing a means for dealing with al Qaeda where the Republican strategy has failed for four years running.

Democrats ought to go out of their way to talk about al Qaeda in Iraq.  Here are my talking points on this:

**    There were many problems in Iraq four years ago, but at least al Qaeda did not have a stronghold in that country, al Qaeda did not have free reign to foment sectarian violence, and al Qaeda was not training a new generation of fighters how to conduct jihad.  Today, we have all of these problems, thanks to the Republicans’ failed policies for dealing with terrorism in Iraq.

**  There was still not an al Qaeda problem in Iraq when the statute of Saddam fell.  But by failing to have enough troops to maintain order and disaffecting the Sunni population, Republican policies allowed al Qaeda to gain a constituency and a base of operations right under our noses. 

**  Republicans now claim that because their policies created a jihadi terrorist problem in Iraq, and they have now failed to eliminate the terrorist threat in Iraq for four years, we have no choice but to continue their failed policies. 

**  There is a better way. 

And I will discuss that better way in my next post.   

 

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

My sense is that there is actually very little the US can do about al-Qaeda in Iraq. It's mostly out of our hands. Thus it is not suprising that the main Democratic candidates have little to say about the issue, and are avoiding raising public expectations.

Al-Qaeda is Iraq is one component of the self-described Islamic Emirate of Iraq, which is in turn one component of a broader Sunni jihadist movement, which is itself part of Iraq's even broader Sunni resistance, a resistance that contains Saddamist and other nationalist elements in addition to the jihadist elements.

One thing we can hope is that once the US has lifted its provocative and counterproductive occupation of Iraq, a large part of the resistance will perceive that al-Qaeda in Iraq has outlived its usefulness, and will act more aggressively against it. That counter-movement has already begun. Pepe Escobar reports in Asia times that Sheikh Abu Risha, the leader of the Anbar Sovereignty Council, is reponsible for having expelled Al-Qaeda in Iraq from Ramadi. But the opposition to al-Qaedists will probably be muted so long as they are perceived to be playing a useful role in ending the occupation.

We also have to stop declaring - somewhat stupidly, it seems to me - that the involvement of other neighboring states in Iraq, and those states' investment in Iraq's solvency and security, constitute "meddling". Aside for the fact that opposition to foreign involvement in Iraqi security is contrary to our interests, these statements also makes us look rather idiotic, given that we are an invading power from far away, and thus the chief meddlers in the country. Preventing al-Qaeda in Iraq and its most militant and radical comrades in the resistance from successfully establishing some sort of Salafist Islamic Republic in Iraq will require strengthening other established communities in the country - the Kurds, Sciri and even the Sadrists, and allowing them to develop the capacity to defend themselves and their communities. That means, in part, accepting their legitimate interest in establishing security relationships wih friendly states.

Now the current governing coalition has sought to develop ties with these neighboring countries. Maliki and his government have sought good relations with Iran, and the Iranians have pledged to open banks in Iraq and invest in other ways. The Kurdish regional government has also sought to develop good relations with Iran. The US response to this has been such things as assaulting and kidnapping invited members of an Iranian delegation to the Kurds. These sorts of actions, of course, send a very strong signal to all of the Sunni rejectionist groups, including al-Qaeda, that the US will continue to weaken the governing coalition by preventing it from working on economic and security matters with its chief natural ally in the region - and thus that their violent opposition to that governing coalition will pay off in the end.

[Don Bacon]

Well if we talk about al Qaeda killing US troops in Iraq why don't we talk about the infinitely larger segment of the Iraqi population who are killing many more US troops? Not terrorists, as you say, but partisan resistance-fighters doing exactly what you or I would do if a brutal foreign army occupied the USA.

According to the most recent polls seveny-eight percent of the Iraqi populace wants the US out of Iraq, and 131 members of the Iraqi parliament has signed a petition that we leave, the King of Saudi Arabia has said that we're there illegally and several of the people in power in Iraq have expressed simiar views.

Why don't we talk about our brutal military occupation which has turned the people we liberated into people some of whom are willing to give up their lives in order to kill Americans?

The administration has developed and fine-tuned the 9/11--al Qaeda bogeyman story to the extent that it's not only tiresome but it's also a distraction from the real issues. Now you want to continue and expand that overdone tale. So you don't dispute the fabrications but you have "a better way". We'll see.

Not many noticed, but Bush got it right on November 30, 2005 at the Naval Academy; our main enemy in Iraq are ordinary Iraqis. "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group."

Let's focus on the real problem and not engage in the al Qaeda publicity machine. The citizens of the Middle East-- Iraqis, Iranis, Hezbullah, Hamas, Saudis etc. are all against al Qaeda and we we don't have to be there (except for the oil and the money, of course--I nearly forgot).

[BobN]

AQ in Iraq is not the same problem as AQ in Afghanistan. The latter killed 3000 US civilians. The former is killing US military personnel. The former is terrorism; the latter is not. And the latter problem can be solved by the simple expedient of denying them targets.

Nor is there any particular reason to believe that, post-withdrawal, AQI will have either the means or the desire to turn its attention to attacks on the US mainland. Blowing up Humvees and getting suicide bombers into the US are very different tasks. And even if Iraq or parts of it become a failed state, it's not clear that it will offer a better platform for the latter task than the Afghan/Pakistan border does now. (It's also not clear what kind of geographical base bin Laden's AQ needs at this point.)

In other words, you are conflating two unrelated problems in order to defend your favorite little war. Gee, who do you remind me of?