[Originally published in The Valley News.]
Americans are not united behind any one policy on when or how to get out of Iraq. Why? Largely because “Iraq” is an internal political issue that stems from the Bush White House’s campaign to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people after 9/11. During that campaign, a number of things that simply were not true got woven almost permanently into the Iraq tapestry.
This sales campaign stated that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11; that there was an ongoing relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaida; that there were WMD that would materialize in the form of mushroom clouds in the United States; that we could bring democracy to Iraq and that the Iraqis somehow could learn to live together. All of these things when put together provided a persuasive argument that we needed to Invade Iraq. That argument’s success is best measured by broad, bipartisan, congressional support.
Despite the inaccuracies and untruths of the sales campaign, much of it continues to be believed by significant portions of the American public.
Now, almost five years later, we are told that Iraq is the “front line of the war on terrorism”. This is true, however the Iraqi front line was created solely by the U.S. invasion. Al Qaida is active in Iraq only because there are American targets there. There was absolutely no pre-invasion existence of Al Qaida in Iraq. For that reason, Iraq is better viewed without being clouded by the “fighting terrorism in Iraq rather than here” mantra which is constantly mouthed by Republican politicians.
If you look at Iraq without the Al Qaida/terrorism filter, you will see a “country” made up of three major, competing groups. That “country” has virtually no more hope of solving its internal differences than it has of embracing democracy. Instead, it is sliding into full-blown civil war driven by age-old jealousies and rivalries.
There is, however, a major problem with Iraq. The miserable military performance of the Israelis against Hizballah in Lebanon last summer has shown many Arabs that Israel is not invincible. Like it or not, a precipitous, un-negotiated withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will fuel those fires by positing that, like Israel, America is weak and vulnerable.
“Arabia Decepta” was the title of an essay in Time Magazine just after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. It spoke to the premise that Arabs have a predilection to self-deception on matters that are of great importance to them. For example, the headline on the English language Beirut Daily Star on the third day of the 1967 war was “Israeli Lines Crumble”. Many Arabs will persuade themselves that Israel, American and the West are weak. That will greatly complicate our struggle with radical Muslim terrorism. The only way to soften the effects of US withdrawal from Iraq is to undertake negotiations with all the neighbors, none of whom wants chaos in his neighborhood. Muslims will not view negotiated withdrawal as a US defeat.
This distinction is important because Al Qaida is strong and growing in its ambitions and numbers. Despite U.S. decimation of Al Qaida leadership, our ill-advised incursion into Iraq has been a recruiting and fundraising gold mine for them. Al Qaida is not going away and, like it or not, they will be emboldened and empowered by any precipitous withdrawal.
America is not ready to unilaterally confront a resurgent Al Qaida; one that has already hit us at home and that appears to have a rapidly growing membership. In the past five years of Bush administration Iraq policy, we have alienated most of our friends around the world. Without friends, a worldwide struggle (not war) with Al Qaida will be difficult to win. Enough “War on Terrorism”,” Axis of Evil”, “Dead or Alive,” Smoke ’em out” or “Bring ‘em on”. This is not the Wild West. Such cocky, intemperate pronouncements, which accurately characterize the Bush Administration’s attitude toward terrorism, only energize our enemies.
We need a new policy. Rather than trying to arm ourselves to the teeth and unilaterally confront our radical Muslim enemies all around the world, we need to re-evaluate our policy and consider the alternatives. Radical Muslim terrorism is supported by a tiny fraction of Muslims. To be successful, radicals must get support from moderates. The nature of terrorism demands that we examine the roots of terrorist movements and try to mitigate the factors that cause their anger and provide their support.
If we do not want to take on the entire Muslim world in armed struggle, we absolutely must look at existing, alternative policies that will weaken Al Qaida in the Muslim world and strengthen our hand against them. We need friends for this struggle, the friends who have deserted us over our Iraq policy.
Unilateral bellicosity is no substitute for sober alliances.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who served in East and West Europe, the Middle East and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff.
Rural Ruminations 