Logic Times

Abandoning the Myth

Posted by Aslan, 11/01/05, 10:46pm. Comments (1)

If the ACLU permitted Al Qaeda to ask Santa Claus for a Christmas wish, what would it be? First and foremost, that the United States leave Iraq, which then they would trumpet as a glorious victory of radical Islam over the West. Even those who disagree with the War on Terror recognize that leaving Iraq at this time would create a vacuum in the Middle East that would be quickly filled by Islamo-fascists. Ayman Al-Zawahiri (de facto Al Qaeda leader) begins the strategic portion of his letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Al Qaeda leader in Iraq) with as much:

"The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq." (Al-Zawahiri letter to Al-Zarqawi)

However, Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda cannot make the United States leave Iraq if the United States does not want to go. This is undisputed fact. Al Qaeda's strategic goal is to make the United States leave Iraq of its own volition, that volition taking the form of the people pressuring the government to bring the troops home. One approach to achieving this end is to inflict endless, grinding casualties that will weaken U.S. resolve to stay in the region. The result of this tactic is producing modest results in the United States:

Yet, the casualties coming out of Iraq, while painful to the nation, are not going to force the United States out of the region for the simple reason that there are no good alternatives. Support or oppose the war, the United States simply cannot leave Iraq without disastrous consequences. The Left, of course, blames the Bush Administration for destabilizing the region with a war that was, in the end, unjustified. A buffoonish mass murderer who pretended to have weapons at least kept the trains running on time and order in the streets.

And here we see a glimpse of the highest trump card in Al Qaeda’s hand: the growing belief of many Americans that the Iraq War began, not as a valid front in the War on Terror, but as vendetta against Saddam by the Bush Administration or as an opportunistic move by Neo-Cons into the region on behalf of Israel or oil interests. The ubiquitous claim of those on the Left – mainstream Democrats and Michael Moore acolytes alike – is the great Myth that "Bush Lied."

What has been at the top of the news in recent weeks? The Fitzgerald indictment of Scooter Libby and the accusations by the Left that the White House discredited Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to obscure the fact that the WMD claims against Iraq were false. Make no mistake, the Plame Affair has nothing to do with "outing" a desk jockey at Langley and everything to do with, as Harry Reid said on Tuesday (11/01/05) "how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."

Reid’s gambit was designed to prod Republicans to agree to speed up 'Phase II' of the investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, into how spy data was used or misused in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003….

The indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide Lewis Libby last week offered Democrats a chance to put Iraq intelligence back on the agenda. Reid did so in spectacular fashion.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before making the motion which sent the Senate into a closed-door session. (here)

This is the consensus of the Left, not just the opinion of a leading Democrat Senator.

Libby indictment historically echoes Watergate

The indictment of I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements is likely to prove an event of historic proportions rather than a passing episode, despite the efforts of administration apologists to minimize its significance. The importance of this event cannot be understood and interpreted but within the broadest possible context, and the context is the launching of the Iraq war under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction and the undue influence of the neo-conservative clique in convincing President Bush to take this action. (here)

And here...

There is every indication that White House officials were hard at work in the summer of 2003, trying to discredit the findings of an administration critic who had challenged the White House's use of intelligence in justifying the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. (here)

And here...

The Libby indictment

Rove still a target in case that's about covering up false reasons for Iraq war

In the run-up and immediate aftermath of the Iraq war, the Bush administration's attitude toward anyone who dared question its actions can be summarized in one word:

Ruthless.

Its tactic was to go for the jugular and destroy critics through carefully orchestrated campaigns to discredit them, and have the White House's more-than-willing surrogates even brand them un-American.

The reasons why are now clear:

The weapons of mass destruction rationale President Bush used to launch the war was based on manipulated intelligence, the country was grossly misled, and the administration wanted to cover it up. (here)

The idea that there was no valid link between the War on Terror and the Iraq War is the obsession of the Left in this country and the basis for their speculation from Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame to the fantasies of Michael Moore.

From the Islamic equivalent of NORAD deep in the mountains of Afghanistan, Al-Zawahiri and an embalmed bin Laden surely know this greatest vulnerability of their powerful enemy. The opinion in the United States that the Iraq War was built upon lies and deception is so mainstream, so compelling that the opposition leader in the Senate is engaging in parliamentary maneuvers to promote this very idea. Every major media organization, giddy with excitement and demonstrating the truth of the Media Uncertainty Principle, has intimately linked together a shoddy CIA hit job on the Bush Administration that contains more liars than a Clinton family reunion with the belief that a sitting president is sacrificing American soldiers for personal gain.

Al Zawahiri, eager to let the media relive Vietnam, acknowledges the primacy of "Bush lied" thinking in his infamous letter:

"However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media…

You might ask an important question: What drives me to broach these matters while we are in the din of war and the challenges of killing and combat?

My answer is, firstly: Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy." (Al-Zawahiri letter to Al-Zarqawi, emphasis added.)

Supporters of the Iraq War know that the most serious threat to the United States remaining in Iraq to finish the mission is the Myth that the Iraq War is not linked to the War on Terror. We also know that Al Qaeda, eager for the U.S. to leave the region, is keenly aware of this vulnerability. What then is the strategy that best serves Al Qaeda’s interests? To actively promote the idea that the Iraq War has little to do with Al Qaeda. To feed the belief that a home-grown rebellion by Iraqi insurgents is the source of the ongoing struggle.

In fact, there could be no greater counterproductive move by Al Qaeda than to give ammunition to supporters of the Bush administration that the terrorist organization is intimately involved in the Iraq War. A commitment of foreign Al Qaeda fighters, a proliferation of Al Qaeda tactics and visibility of high level Al Qaeda control of the insurgent operation would be destructive to selling the great Myth to the American people. As long as credible officials of the United States government can point to the frantic tactics of Al Qaeda on the ground in Iraq, the Myth is undermined.

Yet Al Qaeda, contrary to all logic, has chosen to make a stand in Iraq.

Common sense reveals there can be only one reason why Al Qaeda, despite its desire to promote the Myth, is so fundamentally engaged in the Iraqi insurgency: there would be no insurgency without Al Qaeda; there would only be a free Iraq, a model of successful self-governance in the region and the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the Middle East does not want or cannot handle freedom. Envision an idyllic Iraq without any of the activities of Al Qaeda these past two years – few suicide bombs, no foreign fighters, no Iranian subversive presence, a silent Al Zarqawi. Al Qaeda is life support for the Iraq insurgency and, without that support, even the jaded U.S. media would be eventually persuaded by the progress in Iraq and the Myth would die off.

Al Qaeda would prefer to lay low and simply let the Myth pervade American popular thinking, but to do so would allow Iraq to prosper and this would be the death of the terrorist cause in the heart of the Islamic world. Thus are they conflicted: the need for an insurgency to keep the pressure on American political leaders on one hand opposed by the need to promote the Myth on the other. They cannot do both at the same time, for the Iraqi insurgency is an Al Qaeda operation, not a local one. And what could be a clearer proof of the link between the War on Terror and the Iraq War than the unequivocal actions and words of our main enemy in the War on Terror:

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God about the epic battles between Islam and atheism."

(Al-Zawahiri letter to Al-Zarqawi, emphasis added)

Even if there was absolutely no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or Iraq and the War on Terror, the subsequent stand that Al Qaeda has taken in Iraq shows a remarkable vision on the part of George W. Bush to understand the enemy and engage them where they consider the matter vital. The link, however, was plain for all to see: given the lessons of September 11th, the United States could no longer passively wait for dangerous enemies to strike first. The Bush Doctrine in action is why we are in Iraq, and how brilliant is it that this exercise of the Bush Doctrine not only liberated 25 million people and stopped a mass murderer, but also became the obsession of our primary enemy, Al Qaeda? Such strategic maneuvering, all under the humane umbrella of promoting liberty and self governance, represents geopolitical brilliance not seen often in our lifetimes. No question there are challenges ahead, but one challenge that rational people everywhere should be up to is understanding the intimate links between the War of Terror and our current efforts in Iraq.

Bush said that the War in Iraq is central to the War on Terror and Al Qaeda has agreed. Too bad the media and the Left in America aren't listening.

Comments

1: Alexander B.

November 2, 2005 12:30am EST

Your whole article is very well written and as ultimately useless as used Kleenex because it is a house of cards built upon a false premise: that the Iraq insurgency is powered by Al Qaeda. That is the REAL Myth. Here is an excerpt from the UK Guardian:

Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). (here)

{Aslan: The UK Guardian? Are you serious? That organization makes CNN look like FoxNews. They are the authors of the discredited 100,000 dead Iraqi civilian bit of propaganda. Yet, if you read further in your own article, you would have read –

The report says the presence of foreign fighters is cause for alarm "particularly because they play so large a role in the most violent bombings and in the efforts to provoke a major and intense civil war". The CSIS disputes reports that Saudis account for most of the foreign insurgents and says best estimates suggest Algerians are the largest group (20%), followed by Syrians (18%), Yemenis (17%), Sudanese (15%), Egyptians (13%), Saudis (12%) and those from other states (5%). British intelligence estimate the number of British jihadists at about 100.

I never argued the mix of Iraqi vs. foreign fighters; just the powerful tactical and leadership influence of the Al Qaeda members in Iraq and your own study makes that very point. Without leaving the liberal world of the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN, here is some other reading that makes my point –

Foreign fighters (i.e., Al Qaeda) are the backbone of the insurgency. The front line Baathists have a long history of opportunism and fleeing before the U.S. military – without the ideology of Al Qaeda, Iraq would be entirely different today.}