First they tried to scare us with "mushroom clouds" and doomsday scenarios if we didn't invade Iraq. Now that we've invaded and failure seems inevitable, the same people are trying to scare us with doomsday scenarios if we withdraw.
They were wrong then about Saddam's WMDs and ties to al Qaeda. So are they correct now? Don't you believe it!
Imagining Defeat
What happens if America retreats from Iraq?
Clifford D. May | National Review Online
July 26, 2007
For the sake of argument, imagine that opponents of the war in Iraq are right. Suppose that our military — designed to confront a different enemy, on a different battlefield, in a different era — has met its match. Suppose that the war against al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as against various Iranian-backed Shia militias, can not be won, and that staying on in Iraq can do nothing to protect America's vital national-security interests.
If that's true, we must prepare for defeat in Afghanistan as well. There is no reason to believe that the strategy being used against us in Iraq will be less effective 1,400 miles further east.
[Big leap he's making there. Afghanistan may be a lost cause, too, but the situation there is much different. For instance, Afghanistan is not in the midst of a sectarian war. And the population doesn't like our enemy, the Taleban (al Qaeda's sponsor), very much either. – J]
After exiting from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is inconceivable that we would then send U.S. forces into the wild and mountainous "frontier" provinces of northwest Pakistan where Osama bin Ladin has been rebuilding his base. Nor will we be able to exert much pressure on Pakistan's government to take serious action. Pakistan enjoyed cordial relations with the Taliban and al Qaeda prior to 9/11/01. Only after that attack, when Americans rose up in anger, did Pakistani leaders decide it would be wise to realign. Expect Pakistan to shift yet again should America retreat in humiliation from Iraq and Afghanistan.
[Iraq is irrelevant to the Pakistan problem. It's nigh inconceivable Bush would send troops into Pakistan even if U.S. troops remained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Putting U.S. boots on the ground in Pakistan for more than a few days would be disastrous. Villagers would be shooting in every direction at our troops, from behind every rock and hut. – J]
It is probable that Militant Islamists would soon rise to power in other countries as well. Start with Jordan, a nation that already has been attacked by suicide bombers dispatched by al Qaeda in Iraq. Move on to Bangladesh. Add Lebanon, too, a fledgling democracy under intense pressure from Hezbollah, Iran's longtime terrorist proxy.
[Here he makes another huge rhetorical leap. He fails to explain how our withdrawal from Iraq would cause militant Islamists to rise to power in other countries. He owes us that small courtesy, at least. Disregard everything in this paragraph, because it's more irrelevant bullshit meant to scare and confuse you. – J]
Gaza is now ruled by Hamas, a terrorist organization supported by both Iran and Sunni extremists in league with al Qaeda. Its short-term ambition will be to take over the West Bank as well.
Opponents of the U.S. mission in Iraq say they want to "change course." Most refuse to specify what their new course would be. Others say they want U.S. troops to "redeploy" to friendly countries in the region. But in international relations, nothing cools a friendship like defeat. For any regime to rely on the U.S. for security after the U.S. has abandoned Iraq would be high-risk. In fact, it would soon become apparent that the continuing presence of American forces invites subversion, terrorism and assassination of those in power.
[I wish he'd be specific. What countries are we talking about here? Kuwait? No way. We saved them from Saddam in 1991. Saudi Arabia? We already withdrew our troops, quietly, after 9/11, consistent with Osama bin Laden's demands; and the Saudis are handling their al Qaeda problem in their own stupid way: by funding it on the one hand, and torturing and imprisoning its operatives on the other. That corrupt family regime deserves whatever it gets. Turkey? We've already screwed them over, and our withdrawing from Iraq will only make them happy, since they hate Iraq's Kurds who are our best allies in Iraq.
I think America's withdrawing from the Mideast will send a strong signal to the Mideast that we're not going to guarantee the region's security if there's nothing in it for us, and if those country's don't make an effort to fight extremism and promote liberty themselves. We can't do all the heavy lifting by ourselves.
But his last sentence there is 100% accurate: "In fact, it would soon become apparent that the continuing presence of American forces invites subversion, terrorism and assassination of those in power." – J]
Over time, the only Muslim-majority states to resist the Islamists will be those that accommodate the Islamists. The Europeans, too, will cut their deals.
Israel will hold on — or die trying. You can't imagine a second Holocaust within a hundred years? Imagine harder.
[Before there is a second Jewish Holocaust, there will be an equal or greater Arab-Muslim Holocaust, because Israel is not going down without launching its nukes: what Israel calls the "Samson Option." – J]
In this environment, there will be no way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. With both Iran and a no-longer-allied Pakistan proliferating nukes, sooner or later it won't be just nation-states that have them. But our intelligence services are unlikely to be able to tell us with confidence who possesses these weapons of mass destruction or where they are hidden.
[How does our occupying Iraq help prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, or prevent Islamists from taking power in Pakistan? Again, his fears are irrelevant to the Iraq question. – J]
The best bet for the U.S. at this point will be "enhanced homeland security" which just means more guards, guns, and gates — more checkpoints where you'll open your bags and take off your shoes. Such measures will work until they don't — eventually, creative and determined terrorists will figure ways around them.
[But terrorists don't need to be all that creative. All they need are a few assault weapons and ammo, a few tons of fertilizer, a big truck, and chemicals from the hardware store. America offers all the legal ingredients necessary to go on a terror rampage. – J]
Since you've read this far, it would be unfair of me to leave you imagining only terrible scenarios — particularly since there is something else you may imagine: that the new strategy begin implemented by America's new military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, can succeed and indeed is succeeding.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is being cut off and killed. [Al Qaeda in Iraq is a miniscule part of the problem there, less than 10%. – J] Anti-American, pro-Iranian militias are back on their heels. ["Back on their heels"? What does that mean exactly? – J] If Petraeus and his troops are allowed to persist, if they are given the time, resources and support they need, the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be reduced — not eliminated — by this time next year. Iraqi troops would take their place, knowing we will continue to have their backs as they battle our common enemies.
The government in Baghdad probably will still be less effective and less admirable than President Bush had hoped. But, as his critics have noted, he hoped too much and planned too little. Still, the Baghdad government won't be a sponsor of terrorism — it won't resemble the anti-American regimes now in place in Tehran, Damascus and Gaza. That will count as an advance for America's national security — and a serious setback for the Islamist empire builders. Imagine that.
— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment