Peter Bergen, journalist and terrorism analyst has published his own opinion on withdrawal from Iraq in the New York Times today. In summary Bergen believes that withdrawal from Iraq would award a win to Al-Qaeda by providing a prospective base for them in Iraq’s western Anbar province and substantiating the view of America as a paper tiger that has been advocated by Osama bin Laden:
A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,†Al Qaeda’s most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. “Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land,†he wrote. “Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing.†Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.
And there is no riper spot than the Sunni-majority areas of central and western Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the most feared insurgent commander in Iraq — was issuing an invitation to Mr. bin Laden when he named his group Al Qaeda in Iraq. When Mr. Zarqawi was killed this year, his successor, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, also swore allegiance to Al Qaeda’s chief.
Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden’s master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton’s decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies.
He advocates a partial reduction in forces, redeploying the remaining forces from the other regions of Iraq to Anbar province, and changing our mission in Iraq to one of denying Al-Qaeda a base there:
While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq.
That can be accomplished by making the American presence less visible; withdrawing American troops to bases in central and western Iraq; and relying on contingents of Special Forces to hunt militants. To do otherwise would be to ignore the lessons of history, lessons that Al Qaeda’s leaders certainly haven’t forgotten.
Mr. Bergen’s suggestion isn’t far from a proposal that Juan Cole made more than a year ago. I doubt that Mr. Bergen’s proposal for partial withdrawal is politically possible: it has all of the defects and few of the benefits (from a purely political standpoint) of complete withdrawal. Democrats would continue to snipe at Republicans because of the mounting death toll; it would not provide job security for present Republican officeholders.
The course change advocated would also leave the United States without a strategy in the larger War on Terror.
That having been said I believe that Mr. Bergen’s proposal comes closest to my own views of the pundit opinions to which I’ve linked over the last few days although I believe that U. S. interests require a slightly broader set of objectives than just denying Al-Qaeda a base in Iraq.
I just don’t believe the “Al-Qaida would get a base in Iraq if the U.S. left” thing. The Shiites and Kurds aren’t going to let A-Q have real estate on their turf, and it is far from clear that the Sunnis would be any happier about it. The occupation has created a situation where “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” but I just don’t see that lasting if the occupation as a casus Belli was removed. Indeed, evidence from various sources, including tribal fighting against A-Q and the reactions of Sunnis during Col. McMasters project in Tal Afar suggest strongly that A-Q would get its clock cleaned in Sunni areas too.
In any case, the prospect of A-Q fighting fellow Moslems for control has, as 5th generational warfare goes, far more in favor of it that their fighting Americans. Any “paper tiger” spin could be very swiftly neutralized by such.
Some will respond that a base of operations in Iraq is a stated A-Q aim and we should take each of their pronouncements seriously. I am sure it is. I personally aim to prove the moon is made out of green cheese. I’ve read that A-Q said they have suitcase nukes and that they were going to explode one in the U.S. in September. I must have missed the mushroom cloud on FoxNews. I’ve heard that Iran was going to explode a nuclear test last year – and again I must have missed it. The A-Q leaders come from a culture where haggling is the norm, not poker. I believe what they can do exactly what they say they can as much as I ever believed Saddam’s spokesman, Baghdad Bob.
Regards, Cernig @ Newshog
I think your caution is warranted, Cernig, but, on the other hand since Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tal Afar have all been Al-Qaeda-occupied bases it seems to me that Bergen’s concerns bear some consideration, too.
BTW, tell me how that cheese thing works out. 😉
“I believe that U. S. interests require a slightly broader set of objectives than just denying Al-Qaeda a base in Iraq.”
Bergen was actually concerned about an al Qaeda base anywhere – a place where they could plot and train with impunity.
Evidently, he hasn’t heard about North Waziristan in Pakistan that Musharraf graciously gave to the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies. Plenty of room there to cause mischief.
My point, Rick, was that even if Al-Qaeda had no presence whatsoever in Iraq, even if Al-Qaeda didn’t exist, we’d still have interests in the region that needed defending.
This is something I’ve written about a bit before: we’ve tried out a succession of approaches in securing our interests in the region and each has failed. They’ve also gotten progressively more intrusive which is one of the main sources of complaint that people who live there have about us.