Iraq And The War On Terror.

Hate What I Hate ^ | 8/31/04 | Leifmeister

[Seydlitz]

Leftist Fallacy #2: "Iraq Is A Distraction From The War On Terror: Part III"

I've let this subject lie fallow for a few days, so I'd like to do a quick recap. Folks on the Left like to claim that the invasion of Iraq was mistake, as it diverted scarce American military resources (thank you, Bill Clinton) from Afghanistan, and only serves to enrage the "Arab street". In order to adequately address this critique, it is necessary to determine the ends and means of the War on Terror. Only then can one see whether or not invading Iraq is an integral part of the War on Terror.

1). What is the ultimate objective of the War on Terror?: Obviously, it is the elimination of terrorism. Terror is tactic used by various groups in pursuit of a political agenda, in this case it is Islamic fundamentalism. As the oft-quoted Clausewitzian formula reminds us, "[W]ar is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means." [Italics original] In simple terms, warfare is a means to achieve political objectives. Terrorism is the mode of warfare used by Islamic fundamentalists in pursuit of their political aims. This creates two possible, but not mutually exclusive, approaches to the war. First, we can kill all of the terrorists, which is a very difficult and never-ending process. Alternatively, we can eliminate the political conditions that create Islamic fundamentalist groups willing to use terror tactics. This is often referred to as "draining the swamp". It is this latter approach that the Bush administration has chosen to pursue.

2). How does one eliminate the political conditions that cause Islamic fundamentalists to resort to terror tactics?: The repressive nature of most governments in the Islamic world is an unfortunate fact of history. For the most part, these governments have failed to deliver anything but misery for their citizens. Sclerotic economic growth, repression and endemic corruption are the rule in these countries, with things being only marginally better in the oil-rich states. In the honor cultures that dominate these countries, admitting error is not really an option, so governments have encouraged their citizens to find outside scapegoats for their failures. The West (imperialists during the Cold War, infidels today), has been a favorite scapegoat for decades. The Jews, in particular, are to blame for all of the region's woes, in the minds of many of its people. Frustration, combined with the inability to reform, has played into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists, who oppose their governments as tools of the Western infidels. With no legitimate means of voicing dissent, moderates in the Islamic world have been drowned out by these violent radicals. Accordingly, the best way to weaken these radicals is to open up the political system and reduce them to only one of many voices clamoring for change. It must be remembered that the radicalism of the Islamic fundamentalists invariably alienates moderate Muslims, as happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic rebels in Algeria (and is currently happening in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran). Take away their monopoly on dissent, and you take away the great majority of their support.

3). Where does the invasion of Iraq fit into this strategy of political reform?: Invading Iraq serves a number of purposes towards achieving the objective of political reform. Anyone with access to a map cannot help but notice the central location of Iraq. It provides an ideal jumping-off point to any number of nations in the part of the world. It is partially in this context that one must view the invasion. First, to those governments hostile to the United States and who support terrorism, it sends a message that America has the will and the means to change governments by force. In case they doubt this, they have but to look next door (especially in the cases of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia). After all, we don't have all of those armored units stationed in Iraq just for street patrols. Second, to friendly governments, the invasion gives us the physical proximity to provide support and demonstrates how serious we are about changing the region's political dynamic. Finally, Iraq itself is a perfect test case for our strategy. Not only did we get rid of a nasty and brutish regime, but Iraq's educated and cosmopolitan population provides relatively fertile ground for a democracy to take root. The effect of some semblance of a democratic state in Iraq would be electric, and would serve to embolden reformers throughout the Muslim world.

One last note. Iraq also serves an important function as a magnet for terrorists, the so-called "flypaper" strategy. The worldview of the Islamic fundamentalists holds that Arabs are invincible warriors with God on their side, and they cannot tolerate the presence of infidels ("Crusaders") in their holy lands. Now, an intelligent military commander attacks his enemy where he is weakest. In this case, however, the cultural conditioning of the Islamic fundamentalists demands of them they they drive the infidels from Iraq. Accordingly, they are attacking us where we are strongest; a fatal error. Not only do they suffer severe losses for almost no gain, but they lose the opportunity to train and cultivate experienced cadres. Instead, these young jihadis march off to Iraq with only minimal training and are killed off by Coalition forces shortly thereafter. We have, in effect, hit the enemy in their psychological center of gravity. Their mindset then forces them to attack our very strong military presence to no avail.

[skirk1984]

ping

[Seydlitz]

double ping