What we have seen so far is that bin Laden lashes out spasmodically at targets of opportunity. The United States has been the consistent target of the attacks (though not the only one, of course) but bin Laden’s "strategy" (it can hardly be dignified with the term) is based on a delusion that he has explained many times: when hurt, the United States always cuts and runs. In the Isma'il interview, bin Laden said,
We think that the United States is very much weaker than Russia. Based on the reports we received from our brothers who participated in jihad in Somalia, we learned that they saw the weakness, frailty, and cowardice of US troops. Only 80 US troops were killed. Nonetheless, they fled in the heart of darkness, frustrated, after they had caused great commotion about the new world order.
Bin Laden thought that terrorist violence by itself would cause America to continue to retreat, to withdraw from Saudi Arabi and the rest of the Persian Gulf countries, enabling the Muslim ummah to realize their long-suppressed dream of a true Islamic society (bin Laden having a delusion that ordinary Muslim men and women truly thirsted for a Talibanic society for their own countries). Hurt the Americans enough, he said - more than once, on the record, - and they will flee.
Al Qaeda's political objectives were, and remain, well defined: reestablish the Islamic caliphate of yore. Then extend the caliphate into the middle of Africa, South Asia and parts of Europe and Southeast Asia. After that - these are very long-rage objectives - extend the rule of Islam across the entire globe. It matters not at the moment whether these are realistic goals. Islamists think they are.
Today, for both Islamists and the US, Iraq is the main battlefield. Whomsever prevails there will gain the intiative for many years to come, perhaps so strongly that the other side will not be able to take it away.
There are two main al Qaeda objectives to its fighting in Iraq.
1. Prevent the establishment of a democratic government and society there.
2. Compel the United States to withdraw its forces, hence its influence, before a democratic government is soundly established.
Obviously, these are two closely-related objectives. What is the threat to Islamism by democracy? Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates since the early 1990s, was killed by Saudi security forces in Riyadh in 2003. He wrote a book published by al Qaeda entitled, The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad. In it Ayyeri wrote, "It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy." Islamic absolutism, Ayyeri wrote, cannot exist inside a society where the people think they can pass their own laws and makes their own rules.
The memo says extremists are failing to enlist support inside the country, and have been unable to scare the Americans into leaving. It even laments Iraq's lack of mountains in which to take refuge. ... [The writer] claims to be impressed by the Americans' resolve. After significant losses, he writes, "America, however, has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes."
Today's sectarian violence in Iraq is no surprise. Even without al Qaeda there, millions of Shiites would have felt they had scores to settle. But in the same captured document, Zarqawi explained that sectarian violence would have to be fomented so that democratic sovereignty cannot take root.
"So the solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle," the writer of the document said. "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands" of Shiites. ... "You noble brothers, leaders of the jihad [meaning other al Qaeda leaders - DS], we do not consider ourselves people who compete against you, nor would we ever aim to achieve glory for ourselves like you did," the writer says. "So if you agree with it, and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you to work under your guidance and yield to your command."
The greatest violence today in Iraq is between Iraqis, not the result of direct al Qaeda attacks. Inculcating sectarian violence has been enormously successful by al Qaeda and stands today as the greatest threat to a unified, democratic Iraq - so much so that serious talk is being given now to the idea of partitioning the country into near-autonomous provinces, demracated by ethnicity or tribal identity or Muslim denomination or some combination of all. Al Qaeda must be licking its chops at that prospect. It would be much more able to infiltrate and dominate weakened provinces seriatim than try to take on the whole country. I wondered a few days ago whether al Qaeda’s smart move would be to stop fighting after America's mid-term election next month. Baathists and sectarians now fighting each other realize, like al Qaeda, that their goals are less attainable as long as powerful US forces remain in the country. They are heartened, opined OpinionJournal, by American domestic political talk of timetables for withdrawals and Iraqi intractability.
The current American panic, by contrast, is precisely what the insurgents intend with their surge of October violence. 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 I wondered whether al Qaeda might decide to sit things out after November, stop stirring the violence pot and hope that the Bush administration starts significant withdrawals well before the 2008 elections. After all, even the US senior commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, tacitly admitted Oct. 24 that the country is embroiled in a civil war: "We've seen the nature of the conflict evolving from what was an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis." When contending armed groups are fighting over the control of the central government, that's pretty much the definition of civil war.
It may be, though, that al Qaeda's religious ideology of armed jihad means that it cannot lay low even if it might be advantageous. It cannot merely engineer the US withdrawal, it must be known to have done so. So it keeps bombing and shooting.
Except now it may have actually developed a strategy to fight America. This strategy is very simple and has excellent potential that is already being realized.
1. Target American news media, not for attack but for propaganda.
2. Through the media, buttress the idea in the minds of American politicians that Iraq is lost and there is no reasonable recourse but to begin withdrawing as soon as possible.
I would submit that al Qaeda is significantly accomplishing this strategy, so obviously so that I need not offer cites. And let it be remembered that now the calls for withdrawal do not come from only one party.
My colleague, John Krenson, explained what is at stake for America in Iraq. I'll commend his analysis and add that for the US to withdraw before victory would have catastrophic consequences for us. No other enemy - Syria, Iran or North Korea - would give us the slightest credibility. Neither would strategic competitors such as China or Russia. Inside the Middle East, America's reputation as a nation determined to defend its honor would be irretrievably sullied, this in a culture where honor, shame and perception are of primary importance. The perceived honor of al Qaeda would rise dramatically. The shame imputed to America would not reside solely with us. Cooperative Arab governments would also suffer diminished respect by their own people and the hostile regimes named just now. Resistance to Islamism across the Middle East by government such as Jordan's and Egypt's and their peoples would be badly harmed, perhaps even fatally. Such developments would only encourage Iranianand Syrian adventurism, spell violent trouble for Israel and endanger the ruling bodies of Arab governments friendly or neutral toward the United States. Precipitant withdrawal from Iraq would be a prescription for a much more violent world.
What has this to do with November's elections? Mark Steyn conducted a little mind experiment not long ago.But suppose the "Anyone But Bush" bumper-sticker set got their way; suppose he and Cheney and Rummy and all the minor supporting warmongers down to yours truly were suddenly vaporized in 20 seconds' time. What then? Nothing, that's what. The jihad's still there. Kim Jong Il's still there. The Iranian nukes are still there. The slyer Islamist subversion from south-east Asia to the Balkans to northern England goes on, day after day after day.
Would al Qaeda set down its AK-47s and TNT and take up watercolor? Or would they simply see the disappearance as a sign of Allah's favor and so redouble their efforts to bring us death and misery?
You know the answer.
There are legitimate criticisms of the way the Bush administration has waged the war in Iraq. I've made some myself. But Bush and Cheney are Rumsfeld are not the problem America faces. Al Qaeda is. The administration's critics claim, and some portions of the National Intelligence Estimate say, that the fighting in Iraq has increased al Qaeda recruiting. Probably so - even evildoers "rally 'round the flag."
If you think al Qaeda's recruitment and capability for violence is profiting from America's continued presence in Iraq, just wait until we prematurely withdraw. As Steyn continued, "And one morning we'll switch on the TV and the smoke and flames will be on this side of the Atlantic... ."
Endnote: Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek about to make a way forward. The heart of the issue:All sides in Iraq are preparing for the day the United States leaves. They are already engaged in a power struggle for control of the post-American Iraq. The Kurds have ensured that their autonomous region is governed essentially as a separate country with its own army. The largest Shia parties want to maintain their militias to bolster their own power base, independent of the state. And the Sunnis do not want to wind down the insurgency, for fear that they will be impoverished or killed in the new Iraq. Nobody believes that, after the Americans, this power struggle will be resolved with ballots. So they are all keeping their bullets. ... If the United States were to leave Iraq tomorrow, it is virtually certain that the bloodletting would spread like a virus. ...
As long as that is true - and it will be true for a long time to come - al Qaeda's main goal to prevent democracy in Iraq will be achieved. Zakaria's piece is long but well worth the read.
Related: Should Cheney and Rumsfeld be fired to set Iraq's course aright?
I think that there is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda does have a strategy. Marc Lynch has been doing yeoman's work in visiting the jihadi chat forums - the latest chatter is about the upcoming election and implications. Now its facile of course to argue that we should automatically do the opposite of what the jihadis want us to do (and it is pretty clear that they want us to remain in Iraq). But understanding why they want us to behave a certain way allows us to undercut them as long as we aren't in denial about their goals or objectives.
I think in the short term AQ is focused a lot more locally than we would assume- trying to establish a virtual nation in Waziristan and keep Pakistan off their backs and possibly on the sideline altogether.
Why should we assume AQ is focusing on stirring up trouble in Europe, the US, even the Middle East as anything but a destraction when they have a ripe Pakistan with nuclear weapons in their front yard? Now AQ and their Pashtun allies arent likely to gain control of a majority Punjab nation the size of Pakistan- but they may not have to. Murdering Musharaff could at least spur a change of government more friendly to the extremists. In the long term they may even attempt to subvert Pakistan into a Al Qaeda client state similar to Afghanistan. Thats right up OBLs playbook.
I think Al Qaeda expends resources in Iraq because they have to- Palestine because they want to- and Europe and America because they are expected to. But OBL and his henchman are better at taking the long view than we are. If he can chase NATO out of Afghanistan and sway events in Pakistan over the next few years, AQs position will be significantly more menacing. Possibly they can even lure major US forces into the tribal belt and attemp to deal them a Russian/Afghanistan style defeat, which I believe has been one of their hopes since Tora Bora.
Just posted minutes ago in the same vein, up at http://dadmanly.bl*gspot.com/2006/10/pr-campaigns.html.
The week before critical US midterm elections, and the architects of a couple of high visibility public relations (PR) campaigns must be pretty satisfied.
Yes, Al Qaeda and the Democrats have every reason to be pleased. Let?s talk declared enemies first. That?s right, Al Qaeda and their Media War.
it is pretty clear that they want us to remain in Iraq
I don't think that's pretty clear at all. The link doesn't support that conclusion IMHO.
The theme that comes through in OBL's writings over and over again is that he wants the U.S. (and the West) to withdraw from the Middle East. Now, I admit that a costly, lengthy, demoralizing defeat in Iraq in which Americans conclude that Arabs are not worth much, would go a long way to getting America to withdraw on a fairly permanent basis. But the key here isn't keeping Americans in Iraq, its making the war costly, unproductive and demoralizing.
Amen Rev Sensing
RBT has been saying the samething for sometime. Follow this thread and links over at Austin Bay's Blog:
A must-read from Tom Sowell
and this piece at my site:
'Flags of Our Fathers' by Scott Malensek
***** SCROLL FOR UPDATES *****
RBT
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/10/two_terrorism_experts_get_poli.php
"A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists... Yes, there is little doubt that the botched American occupation of Iraq was the critical factor that fueled the Iraqi insurgency. But for the United States to wash its hands of the country now would give Al Qaeda?s leaders what they want."
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/28/video-scheuer-says-bin-laden-will-rejoice-at-democratic-victory/
LINK Al Queda Launches Media War on US to move Elections
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20659401-38198,00.html
LINK PDF Communication and Media Strategy in the Jihadi War of Ideas
http://www.asu.edu/clas/communication/about/terrorism/publications/jihad_comm_media.pdf
Many might find it interesting to learn that Al Queda is not a pyramid-structure of leaders, but rather a collection of councils. Among those councils...military operations is only one, and is the smallest. The largest are the religious council, the political council, and the media council.
What would the political council talk about?
What would the media council talk about?
"The right picture can win-or lose-a war."
By Donald Sensing's reasoning, which I agree has good foundations - pointing to real costs and dangers - it seems we should stay the course in Iraq. If we don't, factors outside Iraq will turn greatly to our disadvantage.
Between factors inside and outside Iraq, the argument looks to outside Iraq, and between now and later, the argument looks to now.
If we do not leave now, consequences outside Iraq will be less painful. And inside Iraq, both now and later, and outside Iraq later? These three cells of a possible 2×2 table are not of much interest.
If Al Qaeda's media manipulation is just that, and the reality is that Iraq is good and getting better, then the argument is solid.
A large and growing majority of Iraqis, six out of ten, approves of attacks on Americans, and even larger majorities (seven or eight out of ten) blame Americans for the ills of Iraq and want the Americans out within a year. The proposed Iraqi political system has not really stood up, and the government shows more favor to jihad terrorist leader Moqtada Al Sadr and his sectarian terrorist ends than it does to Americans. (I think we can say now that the amnesty for those who have killed Americans was not some subtle tactic, but simply a normal political and then legal expression of the favorable view that Iraqis have toward killing Americans.) Iraqi armed forces have already been built to great material strength, but show no sign that they will ever stand up in the sense that Americans want them to. Unfortunately, American ideals and Iraqi desires are incompatible. Iraqis are resolving the tension between the aspirations of foreign occupiers are their own vastly nastier political culture by becoming more anti-American, in a context where that hostility is not just inconsequential sentiment.
If this picture is broadly accurate, and I think it is, it does not suggest that the diplomatic costs of withdrawing from Iraq can be eliminated by deferring the withdrawal till things are good there. Instead, the diplomatic costs of withdrawing are more like a debt that will have to be paid anyway, with interest from growing Iraqi hostility and perhaps American public dissatisfaction with military activism on the only terms on offer. It appears not to be possible for America to fight without taking on undesired and costly nation-building projects, without incurring vast and one-sided obligations to hostile populations, and without deferring to the hostile wishes of such populations to an extent that American military power is balked. (There stands America's enemy, Moqtada Al Sadr, in government and immune.) Years and years more of staying this course point to a diminished public willingness to return to the ungrateful fray later if Iraq is menaced by external, conventional military force, for example by Iran.
(I would not want a divided and embittered American population and an anti-war legislature leaving America effectively unable to act against simple external aggression, as happened to South Vietnam.)
True or untrue, all this seems to fall outside of the scope of the argument, which is: looking outside Iraq, for the time being staying the course means we do not have to pay the diplomatic costs of withdrawal.
Those costs are very real and large, I agree with that. Al Qaeda's diplomacy is terror.
I'm also sympathetic to the argument that in war, whatever the enemy wants (such as the sight out our backs in flight), don't give him, and whatever he doesn't want (such as demonstrations of American and coalition resolution and solidarity), give him.
But as I look at the Iraqi nation-building project, I see:
Popular support: check failed.
Political leadership: check failed.
Military effectiveness (or even the prospect of it, if the armed forces were 400,000 or 500,000 rather than 300,000 strong): check failed.
The situation appears to be becoming worse, not better. The time came for Iraqi forces to stand up now, and it passed. The tipping point of public support for the Americans in Iraq came, and it tipped in the wrong direction. No American displays of resolution and constancy in support of Iraq are going to win over a population that wants to get rid of us, speedily.
I think these are the most important considerations affecting how we ought to behave towards Iraq - and the high cost of pleasing Al Qaeda probably should just be paid off in the next year or two rather than waiting in the hope that fortunate events will mean it won't have to be paid.
I do agree with the simple point that Al Qaeda has a correct plan to force us out of Iraq politically.
Also, I am not an expert on military virtue. If the honor of the army requires that our soldiers remain in Iraq for many a year to come, to defy Al Qaeda, so be it. They, the soldiers and Marines paying the price, would be the best judges on what's worth it. And their re-enlistment rates say they do judge the fight to be worth it.
But, this (link) is a hostile government acting in support of our jihadist enemies, with the consent and approval of a hostile population.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's prime minister, in a very public demonstration of his influence over the U.S. military, ordered the lifting on Tuesday of a week-old cordon around the Baghdad militia stronghold of one of his key Shi'ite allies.
U.S. troops, at first apparently taken by surprise by the command, abandoned roadblocks within hours around the sprawling Sadr City slum, meeting Nuri al-Maliki's early evening deadline.
...
Reporters saw U.S. troops leave positions around Sadr City, the sprawling slum controlled by the Mehdi Army militia of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iraqi forces manning others open them up to let all traffic flow freely.
A crowd gathered outside the local headquarters of Sadr's organization, some firing in the air in celebration at the end of what a senior follower called a "barbaric and savage siege" that marred last week's Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr.
Is this the road that leads to victory (which I would see as less Islam, to the point where jihad terrorism lacked a critical mass of support) if we travel far enough down it?
PPS: Regardless, I would not approve of Australia's tiny number of troops, which are safely placed and taking next to no casualties anyway, withdrawing and leaving the Americans with less international support. We started this together, for good reason in the beginning, and we should finish this together.
But any time the Americans get tired of being jerked around by the political lackeys of our enemies, for the benefit of a population that just wants us dead - an American decision to let the enemy play their bloody sectarian and tribal games on their own dime would suit me.
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, says Iraq is another Vietnam and America will be forced to leave "in shame" pretty much validating the top level article's main points.
Nasrallah goes on to say that Iraq proves that the Americans cannot be trusted, no one will ally themselves with the Americans, and Islam will crest over the world and America. Again validating the points above.
In addition John Kerry believes that the US Military is made up of uneducated slackers who are one step away from Ghengis Khan. McCain of all people called him a disgrace.
David I would submit there is no middle ground. We are stuck in Iraq and have to play the cards we are dealt.
Westhawk believes US should favor first one party then another in the civil war / tribal conflict; using US force or withdrawal fo same to force an end to the conflict; or simply accede to the religious cleansing and let the Sunnis be driven out; then aid SCIRI and the Badr Brigades against the Madhi Army and Sadr. Sounds about the only course that makes sense to me.
#8 from Jim Rockford: "David I would submit there is no middle ground. We are stuck in Iraq and have to play the cards we are dealt."
You gave good reasons for this opinion.
#8 from Jim Rockford: "Westhawk believes ..."
Here is the link to Westhawk: (link)
Well, Sensing leaves one little fact out his analysis. Yes, Al Qaeda's goals are (a) get America out of Iraq and (b) prevent a democracy from being established there -- but more importantly it © doesn't want the Shi'ites winning either. Shi'ites are considered to heretics by the orthodox Sunni's of Al Qaeda.
Exiting Iraq now, wouldn't be handing Iraq over to Al Qaeda, it would be handing Iraq over to the Shi'ites (except for Kurdistan, which could probably remain autonomous in the immediate future with a little help from the US).
The fact is that our troops haven't been able to effectively combat the insurgencies (there are three: Sunni, Al Qaeda Sunni, and Shi'ite). Unfortunately, the US military's options are relatively limited due to the limited manpower available to them. Other than implementing a draft and saturating Iraq with US forces (which would take several years to implement), the Pentagon brass really don't have a strategy for WINNING.
So, let me make a suggestion. Back the Shia with arms and training, and let them have their civil war. Yes, axis of evil Iran is also backing the Shia, but we can certainly give them more and better weapons than Iran can. And, the Iraqi Shia have always considered themselves to be the true heart of Shi'ite sect. Encourage those tendencies. Let them stomp on the Sunni's and establish a theocracy. I suspect they'll be much less beholden Iran than they would be if they win the war with Iran's help (which will happen if full-scale civil war breaks out anyway). In return for our support, hands off the Kurds. And hand over any remaining Al Qaeda to us.
Exit Iraq, and move our troops back to Afghanistan -- where NATO-lead forces don't seem to have been as effective. Keep the Taliban from re-establishing a hold there, and pursue Osama across the border in Pakistan with Special Forces. Let the Shi'ites take of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and we'll whomp 'em in Afghanistan (and, shhhhh, Pakistan).
cheers,
--Beo
#8 from Jim Rockford: "David I would submit there is no middle ground. We are stuck in Iraq and have to play the cards we are dealt."
No third way in Iraq, by Frederick W. Kagan at The Weekly Standard: (link).