Six years ago today, our nation was attacked by an organization of psychotics who slaughtered thousands of civilians on American soil in the name of expansionist Islamism. Today, those of us who still consider ourselves small-c conservatives, and not members of any hyphenated variety, remain deeply concerned about the current direction of the war on expansionist Islamism, more commonly known by its more politically correct but less precise moniker, the “Global War on Terror.” Speaking for us on this day is the inimitable George Will:
Before Gen. David Petraeus’ report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq’s Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making some hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was the fact that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that the surge has failed, as measured by the president’s and Petraeus’ standards of success.
Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America’s hands.
The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time — “breathing space,” the president says — for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?
Many of those who insist that the surge is a harbinger of U.S. victory in Iraq are making the same mistake they made in 1991 when they urged an advance on Baghdad, and in 2003 when they underestimated the challenge of building democracy there. The mistake is exaggerating the relevance of U.S. military power to achieve political progress in a society riven by ethnic and sectarian hatreds. America’s military leaders, who are professional realists, do not make this mistake.
The progress that Petraeus reports in improving security in portions of Iraq is real. It might, however, have two sinister aspects.
First, measuring sectarian violence is problematic: The Washington Post reports that a body with a bullet hole in the front of the skull is considered a victim of criminality; a hole in the back of the skull is evidence of sectarian violence. But even if violence is declining, that might be partly because violent sectarian cleansing has separated Sunni and Shiite communities. This homogenization of hostile factions — trained and armed by U.S. forces — may bear poisonous fruit in a full-blown civil war.
Second, brutalities by al-Qaeda in Iraq have indeed provoked some Sunni leaders to collaborate with U.S. forces. But these alliances of convenience might be inconvenient when Shiites again become the Sunnis’ principal enemy.
Congressional Democrats should accept Petraeus’ report as a reason to declare a victory, one that might make this fact somewhat palatable: Substantial numbers of U.S. forces will be in Iraq when the next president is inaugurated. The Democrats’ “victory” — a chimera but a useful one — is that Petraeus indicates there soon can be a small reduction of U.S. forces.
To declare this a substantial victory won by them requires Democrats to do two things. They must make a mountain out of a molehill (Petraeus suggests withdrawal of only a few thousand troops). And they must spuriously claim credit for the mountain. Actually, senior military officers have been saying that a large drawdown is inevitable, given the toll taken on the forces by the tempo of operations for more than four years.
But Democrats cannot advertise a small withdrawal as a victory without further infuriating their party’s base, the source of energy and money. The base is incandescent because there are more troops in Iraq today than there were on Election Day 2006, when Democratic activists and donors thought, not without reason, that congressional Democrats acquired the power to end U.S. involvement in Iraq.
A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, “fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it — to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end.” Which is why “unconditional surrender” was a natural U.S. goal in World War II, and why Americans were so uncomfortable with three “wars of choice” since then — in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.
What “forced” America to go to war in 2003 — the “gathering danger” of weapons of mass destruction — was fictitious. That is one reason why this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president’s decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war — the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.
After more than four years of war, two questions persist: Is there an Iraq? Are there Iraqis?
Will speaks for the millions of Americans who yearn for a strategy on the GWOT that obliterates the false choice being put forth by the establishments of our two major political parties, one which advocates ubiquitous democratic revolution and a utopia on the Euphrates as the only solution to expansionist Islamism, and the other which still maintains that there is no GWOT. Meanwhile, the mastermind of 9/11 is alive and well and seems to be spending his days playing with his video camera.
All of this begs the question: six years later, why does al-Qaeda still exist? Why hasn’t the world’s sole superpower been able to extinguish its putrid presence from the globe, sending it to the ash heap of history, to the condemnation it so sorely deserves? What has become of the Republic that toppled a fledgling world empire just over six decades ago? Where is her fortitude, her wisdom, her stomach for the Churchillian decisions that must be made in a time of war? And most importantly, where do we go from here?
Will points out that much of our success in Iraq in recent months has been the result of Iraqis turning to America for protection from al-Qaeda. Again, this particular issue wouldn’t exist had we defeated the enemy who attacked us six years ago on this very day. The vile stench of Adolf Hitler couldn’t withstand American power for four years and still al-Qaeda lives on. We can only hope that our next president is able to recapture the original objective of the GWOT: that al-Qaeda and all other organizations that attempt to further the goal of expansionist Islamism through violence must be removed.
September 11th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Defeating a group motivated by religion can not be accomplished in our lifetimes. There is no short-term victory in the larger conflict we fight. If we were serious we’d realize that a struggle between America and terrorist networks will continue no matter what we do for decades.
We’ve made mistakes but they haven’t lengthened or shortened the duration of this conflict. The only factor in how long this conflict lasts is the will of those who fight.
Can our will outlast our enemies’ will or shall we tire from constant vigilance and tell ourselves well-thought-out lies to sooth ourselves to the threats still out there?
We can reduce the human cost and the economic cost of fighting this conflict. We can do that by being smarter and tougher than our enemies.
I think America will likely fight this conflict with half its heart and uneven commitment. Unlike the Cold War few realize we fight an enemy that although weak by military standards is strong because of its resilience and its unshakable will to fight on.
It will be the challenge of our politicians to find an effective way of fighting terrorist networks and states that the American people will tolerate for the next decades. We can’t have an “Iraq” every ten years. We must find something that Americans will accept that actually disrupts our enemy before they can muster major attacks.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Dave,
to compare this to WW2 is absurd.
1st off, and Americans are guilty of this all the time. WE DID NOT DEFEAT HITLER!
Americans, for reasons having to do with the Cold War and nationalism tend to forget about a certain country called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that played a bit of a part in defeating Hitler.
If you look at the facts, the vast majority of Germans were killed by the Russians, the vast majority of the Wehrmach, Waffen-SS, and Nazi War machine was destroyed by the Russians, the vast majority of the fighting was on the eastern NOT western front. It was Zhukov and the Red Army that actually took Berlin, that raised the Red Fla over the Reichstag and that finished off the Nazis. The fighting in the West was a mere diversion compared to the east. If any 1 country can and should take credit for defeating Hitler, it’s the Russians, not us.
If had millions of Russians allied with us ruthlessly destroying and killing every Al Qaedist in their path,. this would be over in less than 6 weeks let alone 6 years.
Our mobilization efforts, both at home and aboraod also pale in comparison.
It’s very simple. Much like WW2, victory and unconditional surrender will require killing millions, including civilians, imncluding women and children. It will involve destroying cities, making millions more homeless and starving populations. It will involve mass carnage.
Are you ok with that?
The fact is that the majority of Americans, including virtually the entire elites in the media, business, government and elsewhere aren’t. That’s your answer, not Bush, although he has played a role.
I’ve said for years that it will tke at least a 2nd 9/11 level attack if not more than that to really get us to take the gloves off and do what’s neccessary.
Sad but True.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:52 am
“All of this begs the question: six years later, why does al-Qaeda still exist?”
Because the Bush administration, and its allies, decided that overthrowing Saddam was more important.
And would be easy.
And that it was perfectly fine for us to use Iraq as a battlefield for those al-Q elements that decided to come there and take us on. Instead of going to them. As if there is some small, finite al-Q force that, if they decide to fight us in Iraq, cold be eliminated there and the problem would be solved.
Of course it turns out that al-Q in Iraq is largely made up of new recruits to the cause, and there are plenty more where they come from. Recruitment is not a problem so long as our presence occupying a Muslim country and bringing chaos and destruction to it, can be pointed to.
I disagree with EGS. It is not foreordained that the fight against al-Q will last longer than our lifetimes. The recruitment of terrorists – the lifeblood of such movements – takes place in a general societal context in which terrorist movements have at least some credibility – often no more than the sense that they are the only people willing to fight against what many see as a scarily strong superpower that somehow manipulates the conditions of their lives to the advantage of the superpwer.
Many of the people of these countries have simply not bought into (yet) the world order that we are part of, and which really does control a lot of the fate of their countries (the “global economy”, the “international community” etc…)_
If and when the average people in these countries come to a feeling that there is a way forward to peace and prosperity and respect for them and their culture in the globally connected world, then the conditions for breeding terrorists evaporates. I have seen many such scenarios play out in my lifetime, on a smaller scale no doubt – where passionate revolutionaries of various ideologies or religions eventually make their peace with the established order around them, and these movements just fizzle out.
Northern Ireland is one example – perhaps the Basque ETA is going that way too. We might have a golden opportunity these days in Anbar to push this dynamic – where the terrorist alternative has been discredited amongst the people and they just might embrace a different path forward if they see one available.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Tano misses the relevant information.
Northern Ireland involved a tiny nation, the Basque terrorist movement was also built from a tiny group.
However Islamic terrorists swim in culture that accepts and honors them. This culture is tolerated or predominant in 15% of the world.
Northern Ireland’s conflict took over 30 years to resolve. Basically a generation that wanted to fight had to grow old and a generation tired of fighting had to come to power. This took 30 years despite outside pressure applied to a tiny nation.
The Basque separatists’ terrorism has been going on for 40 years.
Unlike either of these groups Muslims are unlikely to run out of recruits until the current generation is replaced by one weary of conflict and done with revenge. However this will only occur as the popular culture in Muslim countries moves from glorifying terrorists and wallowing in anti-semitic and anti-western hatred.
Even if we do everything right terrorists will be supported by millions of Muslims until their culture changes and generation comes to influence that renounces the current culture that spans groups from Morocco to Indonesia.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:09 am
EGS,
I really think you overestimate the appeal.
There are many countries, like India, Turkey, Indonesia – some of the largest Muslim countries, where there is very little, if any, support for the culture of terror. The Islamist party in Turkey aspires to being in the EU, for goodness sakes. Thats a good example of a culture that does see a path forward for integration into the global order – and they want it. Maybe they want to keep their head scarves too, but they arent blowing anyone up.
In fact I think the appeal of the terror culture to the common person is strong in only a few countries, those with the most direct and problematical relationship with the West.
Irrespective of what others may think, the Palestinians feel that Israel basically represents an invasion of millions of (mostly) Europeans, undertaken under the cover of a colonial period, to take their land, as compensation perhaps for crimes that the Europeans themselves committed. I dont think one needs to appeal to anti-semitism to understand those feelings. It is, I agree, a tough nut to crack, because such resentments can be very long lasting. Thats why I think this administration has been such a disaster (one more reason, of many) – because rapidly establishing a peace deal and an environment where the Pals can have some real future is an essential first step.
Other countries in the area are ruled by dictators, propped up by the wealth they amass from selling us resources. Popular revolutions against such situations have always happened – but these days they are more common because people are more aware of the world around them and the position they are in. I thik a way needs to be found to make it clear to these people that we are not simply willing and complacent beneficiares of their oppression.
When the people in general feel some reasonable measure of control over their own lives and the life of their country, then they have no more desire to tear down the powerful. Look what happened in Vietnam. 70 years of fighting what they percieved to be Western colonialism. Suffering incalulable losses. The minute they win however, they start a very short process of trying out some of their own ideas, finding them wanting, then seeking to enter the global economy as responsible players.
I agree with the notion that all people want freedom – which means control over their own lives, and teh life of their nation. There are a lot of people in the world who feel that we have control over the life of their country, and some of them are right to some extent. These situations need to be resolved, and they can be.
If there is vision.
One of the fundamental objections that I have to so much of the right-wing take on these issues is that it fails to accept the consequences of our great power, but merely tries to enjoy and exploit it. We operate on a global scale, and our actions are percieved and felt by others in ways that not many of us understand. Then we get surprised that some hate us and strike out at us. Just striking back harder is not going to solve anything. The history of the world, with its countless empires rising and falling attests to that. Lets take up our responsibilities and figure out how to get everyone on board this train. We are not doing a very good job of that recently.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:12 am
The above shows how liberals are just as clueless as Bush was in 2003.
They don’t understand that people are not the same all over. Polling across the Muslim world (and it is another world) shows broad sympathy for terrorism. It is the height of naivete to think if we just leave terrorists will be soothed and find trouble recruiting terrorists.
What liberals fail to realize is that Muslim culture and religion support terrorism.
I’ve been to Egypt, Jordan and Iran before. I have family members still in Iran. I actually know what the culture is like there. It is a culture of hate where all problems are blamed on Jews and Americans.
When a regular power outage in Iran is blamed on the CIA or Mossad, you know people are not reachable.
Terrorism from Muslims will be a serious threat for decades at a minimum.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:23 am
“Northern Ireland involved a tiny nation, the Basque terrorist movement was also built from a tiny group.”
American forces occupy Northern Ireland, and I guarantee you there’d be a resistance. In fact, I would bet that they would attempt to attack America’s mainland because of it.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:34 am
econ grad stud: ‘I’ve been to Egypt, Jordan and Iran before. I have family members still in Iran. I actually know what the culture is like there. It is a culture of hate where all problems are blamed on Jews and Americans.’
That’s the case in the entire Muslim world. Muslims see conspiracies everywhere, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are generally accepted as authentic. I would recommend “The Hidden Hand” by Daniel Pipes to everyone who wants to understand the Islamic psyche.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Nusrat: ‘American forces occupy Northern Ireland, and I guarantee you there’d be a resistance. In fact, I would bet that they would attempt to attack America’s mainland because of it.’
American forces occupied Germany and…
September 11th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I can’t stand George Will, but that was a well thought out piece.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:02 am
EGS,
It’s interesting that you include the Iranian People in your assessment of Islamic Culture in the Middle East.
Now, I have never been to Iran myself. Nor do I have any contact with my relatives there as now only the distant remain.
However, I do have family members that go back on a somewhat regular basis, and my impression has always been that Iran is different from the rest. That the younger generation there (who are the majority of the population due to a baby boom) yearn for moderation-to be out from under the thumb of the mullahs. That there is real hope for the country.
Now like I said, I have never been there myself. So I wonder if this is spin by Persians here in America (there are like 4 million BTW) who long for the return of the Iran they fled. A country that was modern, cosmopolitan, and Western-friendly.
Your thoughts?
September 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am
BTW, kudos to Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani as they are (as of now) the only two Republican candidates to mark this as 9/11 on their websites.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:44 am
I want to be careful here. While I have family in Iran and I have visited them I am not an expert on the general situation in Iran. I can only tell you what I’ve seen and been told by my family there.
The moderation of the youth is superficial and oversold given what I know.
Sure in Tehran and other cities you’ll find youth who consume elements of Western culture and want something besides the Mullahs. However these youth still often uncritically accept the terrorist narratives you find in Egypt. If something goes wrong or times are bad their instinct is still to blame Jews or America.
Outside of the cities the youth aren’t even superficially moderate.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am
A point that is being missed is that the power of this country, the United
States, is God. Without God, we would be nothing. Why can’t we extinguish
Al-Qaeda? Because we have turned away from that being who created us and
has blessed us beyond measure in this great land. But that is the price of
freedom. It can be won and maintained, and it can be lost, depending on what
we do with it. When we do good, we can maintain our freedom, but when we turn
from God to do evil, we lose it. To the extent that we reject God and accept
evil, Al-Qaeda will continue to have power over us.
I want to elect a candidate who understands this.
September 11th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Quote: “BTW, kudos to Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani as they are (as of now) the only two Republican candidates to mark this as 9/11 on their websites.”
Ah .. NO!! Fred released a statement Yesterday Morning!!!
September 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Ah well it wasn’t on his website (although Gov. Huckabee put a statement up, so more Kudos). Rudy’s campaign actually closed down their website for the day and instead directs viewers to the national 9/11 memorial
September 11th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
EGS,
I strongly disagree with your perceptions of the supposed “mind of the muslim”. And I am not operating from some fantasy position a la Bush ‘03.
There are reasons why many people in the Muslim world hate America – real reasons. Need I remind you that in Iran, for instance, there used to be a democracy. The democratically elected government decided that the government should own the oil resources. Now this may not be our favorite policy position, nor a wise one, but it is hardly out of the ordinary (eg Mexico, Saudi Arabia etc.). But the United States reacted to this by mounting a coup against the democracy and installing a monarch / dictator – the Shah. Imagine that – the original anti-colonialist power, the United States, beacon of freedom for the world, overthrowing a democracy and replacing it with a dictatorship in order to serve our oil interests. Sadly, these are simple inarguable facts.
So no, it is not some irrational fantasy America that muslim people, or lots of other people in the world react against. no doubt you could troll through those societies and find lots of instances of popular propaganda that go way beyond referring to these real grievances and invoke crazy conspiracy theories. But the traction that these efforts get is grounded in some very real and legitimate facts.
I think that the weight of evidence is way over on the side of people around the world having similar needs, desires and aspirations. Of course there are differences, but you, and people like you make it sound like the muslims are either sub-human, or an alien species that, unlike us, are motivated by pure irrational hatred. These are the classic tactics of right-wing racist ideologies, and they fester in an environment in which people ignore or gloss over the real-world conditions that these people face, and the effect that our global projection of power has on their lives.