I caught part of the president's press conference this morning and a thought struck me when he renounced, again, the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. It's an idea I've denounced myself: "Setting a timetable for withdrawal only notifies al Qaeda of the date of their triumph."
So I started wondering this morning why the terrorists in Iraq seem not to understand that time-mandated withdrawal from Iraq is practically central to opponents of President Bush specifically and the Republicans generally. And surely they have to realize that there is probably no one who would more like to start drawing down US forces from Iraq than President Bush himself, especially if he can make meanignful reductions before the two parties have their 2008 conventions.
So, imagining myself as an al Qaeda strategist, I would be asking the terrorist leadership why they are stepping up the violence now. Okay, dumb question: they want to influence the 2006 elections.The Baathists and Sadrists can read the U.S. political calendar, and they'd like nothing better than to feed the perception that the violence is intractable. They want our election to be perceived as a referendum on Iraq that will speed the pace of American withdrawal.
So let us carry that intention a little farther. This month is already the worst month in Iraq in a year, regarding US casualties. Let us assume, for argument's sake, that voters next month decide a change in the Congress is necessary. We need not assume that the Democrats actually take control of either house, but that thay gain enough seats to put a real scare into the Republican members and the rest of their party.
If I were an al Qaeda strategist, that would be my cue to taper down my violent actions over the next three or four months and then, beginning in spring 2007, start to lay low. I'd fill time with political reorganization, training, equipping, recruiting and other reconstituting efforts. By the fall of 2007, the Busha administration will use the lowered level of terrorism as a signal that pacification is coming along well and gratefully start pulling down US forces. By the spring of 2008, US force levels in Iraq could well be down to 50,000 or even fewer.
Then I'd strike and strike hard.
The administration's claims of victory would be revealed as hollow, another example of wishful thinking. Iraq, critics would say, is unwinnable. With the presidential elections looming soon, the president would be as lame a duck as ever quacked. The administration could well be paralyzed. Then, from al Qaeda's perspective, it might not even matter which party gains the Oval Office, for Iraq would be seen by either party as a tar baby that won't ever become unstuck. If anything, increased violence then would accelerate withdrawal of remaining American forces.
Naturally, such a strategy is not without risk. Al Qaeda is far from the only armed group resisting the central government, and some Baathist revanchists are actually fighting al Qaeda from time to time. Sectarian militias are waging open war against each other. Organized crime groups also kill and kidnap and rob. These groups will continue to stress the Iraqi government and US commanders no matter what al Qaeda does. The training and professionalism of Iraqi army and police may continue to improve until they really can replace large numbers of US troops, and the perception that al Qaeda has been beaten may cause many Iraqis to rally round their flag. The Iraqi people in all their various divisions might become more unified and more willing to rat out suspected terrorists.
But such a strategery might be attractive for groups other than al Qaeda, too. Right now the only thing between them and their victory, however they conceive it, is 130,000 Americans. As long as Goerge W. Bush is in office, those troops aren't going away as long as the violence remains high. It should be glaringly obvious to militiamen, Baathists and Islamists alike, that they will not prevail in any meaningful way until large numbers of Americans go home. So why not hunker down and let it happen? Yes, it's risky from their point of view, but so is continuing the violence in the way are are doing so. Everything in political-military endeavors is risky.
If I was a terrorist strategist, I'd be thinking about this real hard.
Endnote: So are things going well or not in Iraq today, overall? Two diametric assessments are on OpinionJournal today. One, linked above, says that progress in there is much better than given credit and will continue to improve (link again) and that Iraqri Security Forces are improving daily and steadily.
The other assessment, a long email by an intelligence NCO in Iraq now, says that things are actually so bleak, and the ISF so bad, that the US should, "Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army ... ."
Myself, I lean more toward the NCO's assessment than the former, although the former's essay does seem to show that not everything is going to heck in a handbasket there. There are some good things happening. But not enough, and not where it counts the most.
Crossposted at DonaldSensing.com
This reminds me of the story of the boy who saddled a lion- he found it was a fine ride but he could never get off and never sleep.
Donald, the issue i have with your take is that it assumes the longer we go the less viable the 'wait and then strike for political effect' strategy will be. In other words I think it is certainly true now, but i am deeply skeptical that it wont be any truer in 5 years at the present trajectory.
That doesnt mean i think we should announce a timeline of withdrawal. But one of the things (one of the many things) we have botched is demonstrating to the Iraqis- particularly the Sunnis most likely to harbor AQ- that we are not staying indefinately. There have been any number of reports from inside the Sunni insurgency (before the Shiia took the lead as the biggest bloodletters) that the one demand they felt were keeping them from joining the policital process was an agreement with the Americans over how long our troops would be in Iraq. Not a demand that we immediately get out, mind you, but an agreement of some sort to provide good faith we werent staying to occupy. Now its certainly debateable how trustworthy these gestures were, but i doubt it did us any good politically in the Sunni regions to dismiss a pretty reasonable and logical demand out of hand... repeatedly.
What we should have done, from day one in Iraq, is create a series metrics based on events and behaviors for how we would draw down our troops. Not time dependent, but event driven. IE- provide incentives for keeping cities peaceful and American troops not being attacked, and for government functions to get up to speed. Nobody gets shot in Tikrit for 6 months, we pull half our troops from Tikrit.
Now our situation is worse because the institutions we put all our eggs in to take over for us have been compromised, physically and politically. We are churning out more and more IA and IP bodies, but how often do you hear about their successes? Less often than we did a year ago- and that is a bad sign. If the US isnt doing things, they arent getting done, and since we decided to half ass this thing from the beginning on troop strength, we still dont have the manpower to begin to lock things down so that we might build a reliable and trustworthy all Iraqi forces. But now we are trying to thread a moving needle, and we have provided ZERO incentive for it to stop moving.
We've made it our problem by refusing to make it the Iraqis problem in a meaningful way, and now we are at some point just going dump it into what institutions are still around whenever we decide we've had enough. We dont have the manpower to challange Sadr, keep the Sunni Triangle locked down, and keep Baghdad from self destructing, and we dont have an all Iraq force that anyone involved trusts enough (or is willing) to do these things either. In other words, so long as the current dynamic and 'strategy' is clung to, we are screwed. Our political leadership has never recognized our problems, obviously not adapted to meet them, and apparently isnt going to do so now. All we can do is hope for a favorable miracle. Ughh.
I'm hoping I'm wrong here, but there's a small part of me that wonders if AQ really wants to "win" in the conventional sense. That maybe their goals are really more along the lines of perpetual warfare rather than a caliphate, although I can't imagine why that'd be their goal except that they're frickin' insane.
I keep coming back to the OBL "Kerry endorsement" video released in the last days of the 04 election; either AQ was really clueless as to the effect it would have on the US electorate, or they actually wanted Bush to win. I'm half expecting a similar video or message in the last days of this election, and that kind of freaks me out, because it means that we may have to re-think some of our assumptions in regards to AQ and their goals.
I find that rather depressing because I firmly believe that we have to WIN in Afghanistan and Iraq, we HAVE to engage them forcefully wherever they turn up. And if that little voice in my head is right about AQ goals, we're playing into their hands. To me that's scary, because I don't like the idea of living in an America that's afraid to use force to defend itself, it's interests and it's allies.
I've thought for some time (like 6 years) that Al Qaida's smart move would be to follow the lead of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They fought the Egyptian government and got slaughtered as a result. Remember, the great ideological leader, Qutb, died in an egyptian desert prison. So they gave up fighting the government, and just started remaking society from below, without threatening the government's privileges or power. The MB is reputed to be delivering basic social services more effectively than the government - which wins loyalty.
After all, Fatah blew it in Gaza by corruptly stealing everything, rather than providing social services (and they weren't as hostile to Israel as Hamas). Anti-American feeling dropped drastically after the earthquake and tsunami, when the Americans showed up with disaster relief. It's the same in Egypt: people adopt the beliefs of those who on whom they depend (kind of like the Stockholm Syndrome, but on a social scale). Why do you think they provide free food and housing at all those madrassas? They want to help fellow muslims today, and they know those kids will be loyal muslims forever.
In two or three generations, all Egypt will believe what the MB wants - including those in the government. There's no need to fight and provoke violent repression - if you have patience. So the MB gets the Islamization they want in the long run, and the current government gets what they want for the rest of their lives.
Suppose Al Qaida totally renounced terrorism, or just faded away into irrelevance while the committed Muslims came to America - explicitly renouncing violence in both word and deed - to feed the hungry, comfort the prisoners in jail, tend the sick, teach the children, and all that. They would TOTALLY avoid the violent reaction that comes from terroristically fighting the government - while steadily Islamicizing 'the far enemy'. Who would fight against them for doing exactly what the Jesus asked? (feed the hungry, comfort ....) They'd win folks over through good deeds, not violent threats or hollow propaganda. It would work, and there isn't a darn thing we could do to stop it. I doubt we'd even understand it was happening.
So yes, it would in the long term be devastatingly effective for the Muslims to stop all violent struggle.
The question remains as to whether they can. In a traditionalsociety honor is everything, shame is unbearable, and only public violence can restore honor. To a member of "The Religion of Dominance", just knowing that somewhere out there an infidel is arrogantly refusing to submit to dhimmi status is a shameful insult - particularly when that ROD member is watching western wealth on his western-invented TV wearing his western-designed clothes, with his western-made car in the garage of his western-designed building. They could restrain themselves in Egypt because they were facing oppression by other muslims. Can they restrain themselves in the face of 'insults' and 'oppression' by infidels who ought to be dhimmi?
I don't know. But I know this: if they are so irrational as to attack us, we have a chance of waking up and smashing them. If they can exercise the self-restraint to not attack us, then we are doomed.
I forgot the critical part:
After winning over enough support (I believe the number currently bandied about on Islamic sites is 20% of the population), then the serious islamization starts. That's when the disaster would happen, because, as the ROD says:
"When the infidel is strong, bow your head.
When the infidel is weak, drive him out."
Laocoon,
You're not giving the Religion of Dominance enough credit. You don't seem to think it's got good cop/bad cop (muslim style) figured out already. Where have you been? Conversions are going on in U.S. prisons, a proto-mosque is now at Quantico Marine base, much of the Beltway in both parties is on Islamic retainer or doing deals, Saudi gold has bought big "Islamic study centers" in major US academies (if you consider Harvard and Georgetown major. among numerous others),CAIR gets what Christians could never get in most muslim countries, Islamic-American TV has begun, and Georgie Bush holds hands with the charming Prince Bandar.
Relax. We may be doomed after all.
The problem is, Rev. Sensing, they enjoy killing too much to stop. Especially when it's so easy.
Mark B., did you ever stop to consider the possibility that Bush did not disclaim permanent bases in Iraq because we did intend to stay indefinitely? We built (or, are building) the largest embassy complex in the world for what we thought would be Lord Cromer. We didn't need something huge to process visas for would-be Iraqi tourists. We built large military bases because we intended to remain, the better to threaten Iran and to safeguard the West's oil supply against terrorism and economic disruption.
Perhaps you remember that John Kerry suggested we renounce permanent basing during his first debate with George Bush. Oh, but it must have sounded so, well, defeatist and French.
Chickens Bush countd before they hatched have come home to roost.
Perhaps Andrew. And perhaps the military didnt countenance living in tents for the next few years.
Kerry has managed to cover every possible position on the war (and everything else) at one time or another, so I guess the good news for him is no matter what occurs his supporters can always point to whichever position is most advantageous. Little good it does for the nation. Of course if the Dems could have fielded a candidate even marginally less lame and demonstrably jello spined we might not be in this spot.
And btw Andrew, the majority of scholarly critics who have really reported from people on the inside of the Iraq occupation report quite the opposite- the White House and Rumsfeld seemed dumbfounded that we were still morassed in Iraq even 6 months into the occupation. Paul Bremer claims he was told exactly how long he could expect the US to remain so that he could prepare the Iraqis to take control... and that date was several months before the Iraqis eventually were handed soveriegnty and Bremer left.
The problem is you cant have it both ways- Bush couldnt completely ignore preparations for a long term occupation and then intend to jump ship as soon as possible (as Bremer and many others report), and at the same time was nefariously plotting permanent hegemony with tens of thousands of US troops in a perpetual oil robbing business. Pick a theory- they both reflect poorly on Bush.
But the less sinister is closer to really what happened- Bush and Rummy had no intention... heck no indication they ever even entertained the possibility that we would be in for a long occupation/rebuilding. Infinitely worse they refused to adapt to the changing circumstances when there was still an opportunity to achieve some measure of success. Sadly for us all, Bush critics were so intent on finding malice they completely missed the boat on simple negligance that might have held far better traction earlier on, and perhaps produced some positive progress. I am firmly convinced that the far left has more interest in attempting to paint Bush as a villian than producing anything good in Iraq (especially when the two seem mutually exclusive). Thats pretty darn sad for the supposedly progressive party.
Mark, I think at the time of the invasion the idea was a quasi-permanent force of about 30K. How that tallies up with the size of the bases we constructed, I don't know, but the implications of the oversized embassy seem clear to me. I certainly agree that Bush and Rumsfeld had no idea we would be in the current situation, no idea at all.
The ideas linked to in the original post about a much larger force (and other ideas besides) strike me as more sensible than anything coming from the current Administration. Ironically, any such escalation will indeed have to come from the Democrats, if for no other reason, because no one in their right mind would trust Bush and company to do the job right. But given that we don't have a parliamentary system, we will, regardless of the upcoming election (which I expect creates Speaker Pelosi), have GWB running the executive branch and Rumsfeld at DoD for two more long years, at the end of which Iraq will probably be past repair by Allah Himself.
The Los Angeles Times (10/25) reports that al-Qaida is transferring recruits from Iraq to Afghanistan. They have succeeded in what they wanted to do in Iraq and do not want to get involved in the Sunni-Shia civil war that is developing there.
Gringoman,
You asked me "Where have you been?"
As I delicately hinted, I was on the front lines of this struggle before 9/11. I'm quite aware of the recruitment in jails (also deftly exploiting the black/white divide, BTW) - which is why I tossed in that 'visit the prisoners' part. I've done much more study of them and their tactics than can be discussed here.
For example, why was 9/11 specifically on the 11th of september? Why was Shah Massoud targeted for killing in July? And why, when they only killed him in September, did the attack still go forward on the 11th? What the heck has Shah Massoud to do with Manhatten, anyway?
It's elementary military tactics, my friend.
Further, I'm quite aware of the left/islam alliance, especially as it worked out in Iran. The left works with muslims because they have a common enemy in Western culture - and the muslims work with the left because they are useful idiots. But after the revolution they all get killed.
BTW, the answers to all those questions encrypted(symmetrically, with a password) below. I invite folks to figure out the answers, before I reveal the password!
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)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×4Rx4bvxgsRF2XMu/UfEbPOMoQA19
5doEDybs+wexGQCTY9Y/tCHo9OG945HS9DtGyiGIku2ELYE+4bcOO5fE+Wgha7y/
E+1HqL/a5SQuVMhW9hmRUYF8xm7SbDDNDaHzNPvte8Ud+gLGrW32yXQV/vktGES+
LEvyJZs8G0NjQTgLbhI0Cw==
=mkqH
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Oy vey,
The posting system changed 'R2×4' changed to 'R2�4' in the line near the end that starts 'oAYB5'. So you have to correct that before decryption.
Anyway, I hope ya'll enjoy this little strategy and intell puzzle.
Last try:
It helpfully changed 2-ex-4 to 2-times-4
Yet another example of rigid over-interpretation leading to stupid behavior.
Laocoon,
Well, you still seem to think we have a better chance of avoiding doom if Islam does good cop instead of bad cop. I understand the rationale. "Soft" Islam knows how to conquer too, at least in the West that shows how willing it is to bend down. Still, what if they manage a "device" that causes horrendous damage in, say, NY and/or Washington. You seem to think such a blow would be Pyrrhic for them, waking up the Sleeping Giant at last. How? How is such thinking not like the Generals fighting the last war, with the facile analogy to Japanese and Pearl Harbor, which was totally different and more simple than today's global network of religious fanatics with a thousand years of experience in terror and conquest? After a big blow in the U.S. who is the White House going to target for American fury (after what remains of DOJ lawyers and intel etc theoretically find whodunnit?)Are they going to take out a million innocent civilians in Tehran? Vaporize Mecca? Everybody knows that no "sensitive" U.S. President will give that order. (As pointed out at gringoman.com, even Ronald Reagan gave Hezbollah impunity for massacring 241 Marines in their sleep.) So the U.S. "retaliates" by nuking Tora Bora? Hey, that'll teach 'em, won't it?
It alos might very well be that al Queda does not WANT us to leave.
They like having their enemy over there, it is their area and they are familiar and have a support network in place. Please remeber what Osama said about the reason for the 9/11 attack:he wanted the USA to attack a muslim country.
To a certain extent AQ knows the political landscape, but a tiger can't change its stripes. Part of their recruitment effort is based on "fighting." They would be hard pressed to reign in their recruits and have them listen to political reason. Also, if AQ rests, they give real Iraq a chance to get settled. They can't allow that because it could spread throughout the Mid East.
Gringoman,
I think you missed my point:
"if they are so irrational as to attack us, we have a chance of waking up and smashing them. If they can exercise the self-restraint to not attack us, then we are doomed."
I said 'have a chance' to wake up, and you seem to be interpretting it as a claim that we are guaranteed to wake up, respond appropriately, and make it guaranteed Pyrhic. I don't think so at all, for all the reasons you lay out - and more.
Maybe if I'd said 'slim chance of waking up' versus 'no chance' (aka 'doomed') it would have been clearer. In any case, I'm sure no one else wants to read any more about this.
----
Anyone care to give a reason how the Taliban's assassination of Shah Massoud was connected to Al Qaeda's attack on 9/11?
Whatb a pitiful partisan hatchet job, Donald. Do you get paid to equate the Democratic Party's fortunes with Al Qaeda or is it done gratis?
Al Qaeda is no longer the main issue in Iraq, they're a pimple on this thing now.
And the notion that AQ or the Mehdi Army or the various gangs and cabals and clans and tribes and free lance head chopprs are trying to influence our election borders on clinical paranoia. It's Ramadan. Happens every year. And it's a response to the crackdown in Baghdad which is on our schedule not theirs. Our Republican president launches an offensive that coincides with Ramadan and you conclude the fighting is all about the midterms and an effort to help Democrats? Hello?
In the spirit of the uncharacteristically silly post I have two psychic predictions to offer:
1) Next Ramadan we'll have another big insurgent push. This will of course be an effort to affect the off-year Virginia gubernatorial election.
And 2) In Afghanistan fighting will taper off as snow begins to fall in early winter. This will be an insidious effort by the Taliban to make Santa's "nice" list.
Whats up with the "tar baby" comment? That's a pretty racist term that you should not repeat in public. WTF!
Whats up with the "tar baby" comment? That's a pretty racist term that you should not repeat in public. WTF!
AQ can not stop fighting because of the centrifugal forces of Iraq are the unsettled split between Shia and Sunni branches of Islam. AQ and OBL have preached about the split and how it is the duty of the Sunni to kill the apostates. To that end it blew up the golden dome of the Shia in a Sunni city where the dome had existed for over a thousand years forcing the country into further states of destabilization. If they stop now much of the death squad lawlessness may diminish and allow the coaltion to point out to both sides it is AQ that is causing most of the suffering to the Iraqi population. That may lead to a backlash against foreigners(AQ) and their local supporters allowing them to be crushed.
There are a number of factors not taken into account here. A quiet AQ is likely to be strangled by the "legitimate",i.e. Iraqi nationals, competing powers and their state sponsors.