Is al-Queda in Iraq?
Today’s controversy between the McCain and Obama camps came over the subject of al-Queda in Iraq.
What’s less controversial is the hypothetical construction of the line of questioning posed by Tim Russert. The question related to how Obama might handle a situation as Commander in Chief in which —
“.. if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?” – from WaPo transcript of the Democratic Presidential debate
Obama’s answer in the conditional paralleled Russert’s question:
“-Now, I always reserve the right for the president — as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.” – ibid.
McCain understood Obama’s answer, since he indicated that he understood it by prefacing his later comment (below) by restating the “if we left Iraq” conditional nature of the question.
“-I have some news, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called `Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country and I’m not going to allow that to happen.” – Sen. John McCain
It was bad enough when Bush intentionally conflated Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden to justify the war in Iraq. McCain’s conflation of Osama bin Laden’s al-Queda with Tawid, the organization formerly led by Zarqawi which was later renamed al-Queda in Iraq, further exploits the public’s confusion. Obama’s rebuttal — that al Queda wasn’t in Iraq when the war started — helps, but it hardly begins to dispel the many layers of disinformation enveloping this issue.
Perhaps it’s fitting in a war against a ‘military tactic’ that we don’t know who our enemy is, but there’s something extremely galling about a Presidential candidate who advertises himself as knowledgeable on defense issues and then parades his ignorance, although I hardly presume it ‘honest’ ignorance.
But even the idea of a war is wrong, since it’s less a war than an occupation. And moreover, it’s not we who are defending ourselves, since we attacked them. Wars can be won, an armistice signed; but occupations can can only conclude when the occupying power decides to leave. And this is what McCain and his ilk have deemed defeat. I could dive deeper into this Orwellian abyss, but I’ll save that for another day.
In another interesting discovery, I ran across article by Michelle Maiese about “entrapment” the other day. Entrapment is the term Kenneth Boulding gave to the problem I would call ‘sunk costs.’ Once a country heads down the path to war, there can sometimes be a single-minded determination to continue no matter what the cost. Another psychological dynamic apparent in this mass delusion is cognitive dissonance. Despite the evidence against the war, there are some people who still cling to the notion that we had a just cause. I’m reminded of a speech by Al Haig, in which he insisted that he ‘knew’ there were weapons of mass destruction.
I’ll end this post here, and I will return to this subject later. The link below is on entrapment.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sacrifice_trap
