Bush’s July 4th speech mentioned al Qaeda only four times — he showed great restraint — though one of the references told us that the terrorist network is “the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th.” It’s always heartwarming when the president talks down to Americans as if we have no idea who al Qaeda is.
Bush added, “A major enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that dared attack the United States on that fateful day.” Not too terribly long ago, Bush described “the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda” — not even the network itself — as the “smallest” component of violence in Iraq. But he wasn’t as politically desperate at that point.
But this was the real gem.
“If we were to quit Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists we are fighting would not declare victory and lay down their arms — they would follow us here, home. If we were to allow them to gain control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves — which they could use to fund new attacks and exhort [sic] economic blackmail on those who didn’t kowtow to their wishes.”
The first half of the argument — terrorists would follow us home — continues to be fairly silly. As recent events in Britain make clear, there are dangerous extremists who want to do harm to the West. Whether U.S. troops stay in Iraq another day or another decade won’t make the threat go away — though the longer our presence, the more serious the terrorist threat grows.
For that matter, I had hoped we were past this point by now, but as long as Bush continues to repeat nonsense, it’s probably a good idea to keep debunking it. Fred Kaplan, calling the president’s argument “nonsense,” once again sets the record straight.
First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They’re combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.
Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.
Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don’t have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover? Or will they seek out a less blatantly selfish protector?
Then there’s the second half of the argument.
Bush described a scenario in which al Qaeda, after a U.S. withdrawal, seizes “control” of the entire country of Iraq.
But that really doesn’t make any sense. Kevin Drum recently explained:
[T]here’s a dirty little secret of the Iraq war that neither party is eager to acknowledge publicly: namely that the fastest way to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is probably for us to leave and let the Iraqis do it themselves. Republicans don’t want to acknowledge this for the obvious reason: they want to stay in Iraq and this doesn’t help their cause. Democrats, I suspect, also don’t want to talk too much about this, but for a different reason: because it tacitly condones the reason the Iraqis can do a better job than us of stamping out AQI. It’s not just that Iraqis know their own neighborhoods better than us (though that’s part of it), but that when it comes to exterminating AQI Iraqis would almost certainly be far more brutal about it than Americans. That’s not really a subject anyone wants to bring up in polite company.
But that doesn’t make it any less true. If we leave Iraq, the country is unlikely in the extreme to become an al-Qaeda haven. Partly this is because it’s rage at the American presence itself that provides a big part of the fuel for AQI’s growth. Our withdrawal would eliminate that source of rage and devastate AQI’s ability to continue its recruiting. Partly it’s because, as we’re seeing in Anbar province right now, even Sunni extremists don’t like AQI. Left to their own devices they’ll kill off AQI jihadists in order to protect their own tribal turf. And partly it’s because once we withdraw, non-Kurdish Iraq will be free to finish its inevitable transition into a Shiite theocracy — a transition that’s sadly unavoidable whether we stay or not. Yes, this transition will be bloody, but in the end Iraq will almost certainly be composed of the Kurdish north, which has no use for al-Qaeda; the remaining Sunni sheikhs, who also have no use for al-Qaeda; and the victorious Shiite central government itself, which likewise has no use for murderous Sunni jihadists on its soil. Between the three of them, AQI isn’t likely to last a year.
Indeed, as the administration’s own policy makes clear, Sunnis in Iraq are anxious to take up arms in order to drive al Qaeda from their country. Here’s a crazy idea: why don’t we let them?
I realize the president is feeling the political heat over his failed war policy, so he’s spinning as furiously as he can, but isn’t it about time for the vaunted White House communications team to come up with more persuasive talking points?