Former New York Mayor Ed Koch manages to write an entire column about the war in Iraq without once mentioning the country of Israel. This is remarkable because there is absolutely no question in my mind that Koch’s thinking on the debacle in Iraq is colored primarily by his concerns about the implications for Israel. Koch is convinced that the war is lost. He even says that we should consider leaving within thirty days. But he places all the blame on the war being lost in the laps of the Democrats, who just don’t seem to get the fact that we are in a war to the death with Muslim extremists.
Sadly, the war in Iraq appears to be lost. The Democrats, like terriers shaking a rat (Iraq) using a plan of funding war for three months — salami tactics — causing the Army command to recognize that the Congress, not the President, is effectively in charge, have achieved their goal: implementing withdrawal.
The Democrats will be responsible for affecting army morale. No one will want to lead the last charge and be responsible for or themselves suffer the last death or be taken prisoner before the order to stand down is issued. When and if — God forbid — the war and the acts of terrorism now faced daily in Iraq follow our retreat across the ocean to our homeland shores, the Democratic leaders who forced the withdrawal will be held responsible. While they will reject responsibility for the deaths and destruction that occur here in our homeland, the American public will remember the dire predictions of what would follow giving up the fight, and switch their support and recall the valiant efforts of George W. Bush to save us from those consequences and honor him in larger numbers than those who mistakenly now loathe his very name.
Here we get the commonly heard prediction that withdrawal of troops from Iraq will result in new deadly attacks here in the homeland. I want to take this idea on, and take it on with the most favorable spin I can find to put on it.
It’s possible that the invasion of Iraq has deterred terrorists from striking in America. One theory is that Bush, by overreacting, has made people have second thoughts about stirring up American ire. It is precisely the irrational and disproportionate response of the Bush administration that gives terrorists pause.
The narrative is spelled out in Bernard Lewis’s Wall Street Journal column today:
During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and ’80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals–notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune.
In other words, American weakness in the face of prior attacks had the effect of encouraging further, bolder attacks. Conversely, Soviet strength had the opposite effect. Therefore, Bush, by mimicking Soviet tactics, is responsible for preventing any follow on attacks after 9/11.
Now, there are some notable weaknesses in this argument. For one, the Soviet Union collapsed. Soviet influence in the Middle East also collapsed. Countries that had allied themselves with the Soviet Union, like Syria and Iraq, found themselves isolated and unprotected after the end of the Cold War. Countries that allied themselves with the United States, like Egypt, Jordan, the emirates, and Saudi Arabia, emerged with better prospects. And, while the United States lost a vital ally in Iran and was attacked on 9/11, we have suffered nothing comparable to the loss of the Soviet-Afghan War or the terrible insurgency in Chechnya. It just seems simple-minded to praise Soviet strategy in the Middle East while condemning American strategy.
But, more than this, the argument makes faulty assumptions. For starters, now that we are bogged down in Iraq, what is to be gained strategically by attacking the American homeland. The more paranoid often point out the advantages another 9/11 attack would bring to those that support further occupation of Iraq and worry that rogue (current or former) agents of our intelligence agencies might be tempted to carry out a false-flag operation to buck up our resolve.
Simply stated, another 9/11 attack, or even a lowly bus bombing, would be more likely to reinvigorate Bush’s presidency than it would be to accelerate our withdrawal. And our withdrawal from, not just Iraq but, the larger Middle East is the goal of al-Qaeda. But that leads me to another point that Koch is making.
What did “victory” mean in the Cold War? Did it mean invading the USSR? Did it mean bombing Moscow? No, it meant hanging tough, preventing the Soviets from expanding their base of power, until the internal contradictions and flaws in their system brought them down. The fight against terror and Islamic radicalism has the same goal… to prevent the radicals from expanding their base, which would happen if they get control of Iraq, and to maintain a tough defense until their medieval culture adapts to the modern world.
Just as people like Koch like to warn us that a withdrawal from Iraq will encourage attacks on our homeland, they like to suggest that a withdrawal will enable al-Qaeda to ‘get control of Iraq’. Now, on a certain level, this question is a matter for our intelligence agencies to assess. I am just a lowly blogger. But, I can state, with a fair degree of confidence, that al-Qaeda will not gain control of Iraq if we withdraw. Why?
Well…Koch spells it out.
Our government has similarly acceded to the refusal of the Shiite majority in the Iraqi government to share power and oil revenue with the Sunni population.
You see, al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. And it is the Shiites that we will be leaving in power. And, more to the point, al-Qaeda is a religious organization while the bulk of the insurgency is made up of dispossessed secular Ba’athists. It’s true that the Ba’athists were predominately Sunni and Arab (like al-Qaeda) but there are severe limits to how much they want to cooperate. I’m a white man, raised as a Protestant. So was Jerry Falwell. Under certain circumstances I might be able to find common cause with Falwell for a limited period of time and with narrowly defined goals. For example, we might be able to unite to drive out foreign invaders. But once those invaders left America, we’d have little to agree on. This is the situation that Ba’athists and al-Qaeda find themselves in in Iraq.
Remove the occupation and you remove the cooperation. But, going beyond this, even if the Ba’athists and al-Qaeda continue to cooperate against the Shiite dominated government, it is very unlikely that they will succeed in gaining control of the country. It is far more likely that they will be slaughtered. And that presents its own problems, as all of our regional allies are Sunnis and they do not want to see their religious brethren slaughtered.
The funny thing is that Koch does understand the situation:
It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood. This is particularly true when, according to The New York Times, not long ago the King of Saudi Arabia referred to our occupation as “an illegal foreign occupation.” The Iraqi government has not passed a resolution denouncing the King’s comment and welcoming the presence of our troops. Even more indicative of a lack of Iraqi support for our troops is the Times report dated May 12, 2007 that “A majority of Iraq’s Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said Friday.”
Right. And so, it is time to leave. Koch understands this. But he still wants to blame the Democrats for understanding it. Somehow, if somewhat incoherently, he wants us to stay in Iraq despite his advice to the contrary. And that is for only one reason. He is very concerned about the implications of American failure for the security of Israel.
And I’m concerned too. That is why I think Israel needs to get very serious about negotiating a serious resolution while they can still do so on recognizable and fairly favorable terms.
