Al-Qaeda -- And America -- In Iraq

Kevin Drum cautions: "if you read a story saying, for example, that tribal leaders are 'turning against al-Qaeda,' this may or may not really mean anything. It might be good news, but it also might mean only that the local shaykhs are taking sides in an internal dispute — but are no less committed to fighting American forces. Something to keep in the back of your mind as you scan the news." I would put it differently. Tribal leaders turning against al-Qaeda is definitely a good thing but only if we handle it correctly.

The correct way to handle it is to say to Sunni Arabs that we want out of Iraq. And to prove that we want out of Iraq by leaving Iraq. But then to say to them that the only thing we want less than US forces in Iraq are al-Qaeda operatives killing Americans from a base in al-Anbar province. Our troops are leaving Iraq, but they can be put back in. Get rid of al-Qaeda, we say to the local Sunni Arabs, and we'll stay away forever -- this war was a tremendous mistake. But if al-Qaeda hits us, we have to come back and hit them. As we've seen time and again, most Sunni Arabs have no love for either Americans or al-Qaeda. If we create a situation where we're gone and fighting al-Qaeda is the best way to keep us gone, they'll fight al-Qaeda. If, by contrast, we insist in staying in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda ourselves, then we'll have a problem. We'll risk returning to the situation we've had throughout the bulk fo the war, where Sunni Arabs dislike al-Qaeda but will take whichever allies the can find against the United States.

Comments

But is it not more likely that the Sunnis will be so preoccupied fighting the Shiites after we leave that al-Quaeda will be the least of their worries?

Posted by Walter Crockett | April 14, 2007 1:10 PM

Committment to withdrawal makes so much strategic sense from the U.S. perspective, that it astonishes me that Democrats are not better able to overcome the Bush "moral clarity" with "strategic clarity".

Part of the difficulty, I am convinced, is that no one, even among Democrats, wants to accuse Bush of bad faith. It is not the strength of Bush's argument, which is the origin of the rhetorical difficulty, it is the reluctance to fully admit what a corrupt and incompetent, untrustworty moron Bush is.

Fully and intelligently analyzing our situation in Iraq means confronting two uncomfortable truths: 1.) the U.S. has failed at great cost; 2.) Bush is a dangerous incompetent. Many people would much rather cling to the figleaf of another Friedman Unit than to confront the reality.

The stark clarity of thinking, which accompanies the realization that withdrawal is in the U.S. strategic interest, will require that people stop protecting themselves psychologically from acknowledging Bush's incompetence.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | April 14, 2007 1:30 PM

I like it. Very interesting idea Matthew.

Posted by The Fool | April 14, 2007 2:41 PM

I think we might be forgetting here that the US doesn't want to leave Iraq. Our Leader says we'd like to leave Iraq, but that's just talk. We've spent gazillions of dollars building huge military bases there. Iraq is the new US forward position in the middle east. It eases the pressure on our pals in the House of Saud if we move our military assets to Iraq. We're not leaving. Ever. Not until a guy named Geaorge is out of the white house anyway.

Posted by craig | April 14, 2007 2:51 PM

I disagree Craig. In fact, an old Rumsfeld memo (anyone help me out on this?) was released recently that showed the initial Bush plan was a rapid draw down of US forces. Ideally we would have been gone by now, with Ahmed Chalabi ruling as de facto Sultan.

Matt makes an excellent point here of course. Let me expand on it: we should make the same agreement with the Shi'ia as well. The Shi'ia, obviously, would have even greater contempt for al-Qaeda, and they will likely be in charge of post-occupation Iraq. And, as the recent anti-US demonstrations have shown, the Sadr slum Shi'ia's (as I should always know them) are also desirous of a US withdrawal.

You could also shape the contract differently. Put it to them like this: turn in some al-Qaeda guys, and we will start leaving. Turn in a lot and we will be gone.

It is important for us anti-war folk to explain this point. Once the 'terrorists will use Iraq as a base' argument is neutralized, which for all serious reasons it is (terrorists dont 'need' bases.... countries need bases... they can plot attacks anywhere, and they own part of Pakistan) then the pro-war folks can only step back to 'well people will die if we leave' - a much weaker argument.

Posted by Neal Murray | April 14, 2007 3:07 PM

The idea of "saying" here needs fleshing out. Saying can't mean giving a speech. It should mean: saying in some kind of political forum. And that forum has to be credible. And it has to be credible to all sides in Iraq. The only kind of forum that satisfies these criteria is a peace table. The problem with the emphasis on withdrawal with a president that refuses to withdraw is that it makes withdrawal seem like a direct, one time only act, and yet that kind of withdrawal will probably be the worst kind. The best kind is to try to set up conditions now. Such conditions have to be about a ceasefire, have to be about all sides participating in negotiations, and have to make the American withdrawal part of that negotiating process - that is, the Iraqis should participate in setting the deadline. This merges the Dem's deadline, for the middle of next year, with the conditions for making it a reality. Otherwise, we will have a sterile standoff of withdrawal/non-withdrawal, no movement on the conditions for it, and the probability of the troops staying in Iraq well past 2009 and the violence there increasing. To make conditions a reality, the Congress is going to have to work around Bush - that means taking up what Petraeus has said about making progress on the political front. If the Iraqi government finally sees that they can't tie themselves to Bush without losing everything, and if the dems agree not to pillage Iraq for american oil companies, ie tearing up the new oil law bill, this can happen.

Posted by roger | April 14, 2007 3:37 PM

Thanks, Matt -- one of the smartest things I've seen in months.

Posted by Barry | April 14, 2007 4:15 PM

"Fighting al-Qaeda" had very little to do with the invasion of Iraq, and "fighting al-Qaeda" can and has been used to justify absolutely anything the administration wants to do.

I were an Iraqi, I'd be inclined to view any offer like Matt's as the duplicitious bullsh*t that such a plan would likely be in the hands of our present administration. The US simply can't be trusted at this point.

Posted by James Gary | April 14, 2007 4:28 PM

I've been pro-surge, but this makes a lot of sense to me.

Posted by berger | April 14, 2007 4:44 PM

"Fighting al-Qaeda" had very little to do with the invasion of Iraq"

al-Qaeda has nothing really to do with why we are in Iraq, and I am not sure the Sunni Arabs of Iraq have much influence.

The Saudis demanded a buffer of American troops between them and the Shia/Iranians, and so we are staying in Iraq. Probably forever, even and especially after the oil wells run dry.

Posted by bob mcmanus | April 14, 2007 5:19 PM

Antagonism between al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents is not exactly a new phenomenon. For example, a story in the January 7, 2006 New York Times begins

American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader.

Clashes between Iraqi groups and Al Qaeda have broken out in several cities across the Sunni Triangle, including Taji, Yusefiya, Qaim and Ramadi, and they appear to have intensified in recent months, according to interviews with insurgents and with American and Iraqi officials.

Let me emphasize this point: back in 2005, Sunni insurgents were fighting al Qaeda themselves. Recent reports say that Sunnis are now providing information on al Qaeda to American forces, which is different, but I'm not sure whether it's a step forward or a step backward.

Here is another excerpt from the article:

Tarik al-Hashimy, the leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, who said he was in periodic contact with insurgent leaders and had asked them to hold their fire during the elections, said he did not think the talks had made much progress. One of the main sticking points, he said, was the demand by the insurgents for a timetable for withdrawal of American forces, which President Bush has repeatedly refused.

But the Western diplomat said he hoped to begin to convince insurgent groups that the new government, which is expected to contain a number of Sunni leaders, was worthy of their support.

"According to Islamic doctrine, as well as democratic principles, there cannot be a legitimate resistance against a legitimate government," the diplomat said. "If we could reach an understanding with each other, meaning the resistance, as they call it, and the coalition, then they will in turn take care of Zarqawi and the terrorists."

Bush is still president, and would rather veto funds for our troops than accept a timetable for withdrawal. My guess is that if we do withdraw our troops, it will be after a long political fight which will make it very difficult to send troops back into Iraq any time soon. So I would say that Matthew's idea of withdrawing on the condition that the Iraqi's deal with al Qaeda is not going to happen unless (fat chance!) Bush decides that al Qaeda is more important than Iraq.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | April 14, 2007 5:23 PM

Stupid idiots in the WH haven't realized that victory -- and this would be victory in the only sense that it's either possible or relevant -- has been staring them in the face as something much like this.

Maybe in September when even the Brooks types have had to give up on the Surge . . .

Posted by CharleyCarp | April 14, 2007 6:52 PM

Get rid of al-Qaeda, we say to the local Sunni Arabs, and we'll stay away forever -- this war was a tremendous mistake. But if al-Qaeda hits us, we have to come back and hit them.

Please clarify for me Matt: in what way precisely will we "come back" to "hit al-Qaeda" in response to some supposed al-Qaeda attack on the US? What is the exact nature of the threat or warning you are proposing we should make? And do you honestly expect that these brave words will have any real impact on Iraq's Sunni population one way or another? Or are they just supposed to amount to some face-saving posturing to soothe our embarrassment?

And what will constitute a case of "al-Qaeda hitting us". I assume you are only talking about attacks from the self-styled "al-Qaeda in Iraq". Or do you mean we should threaten to come back in response to any old al-Qaeda-like attack that can be plausibly traced to jihadist flotsam in Iraq?

Once Johnny comes marching home, our capacity to issue credible warnings toward Iraq will probably be quite limited. I think we can safely predict that no American president is going to be willing to commit ground forces to Iraq for at least about 30 years. That's about how long it will take for a new generation of eager US blowhards to come along - the Peter Beinart Jrs. na Michael Ignatieff II's of the generation of 2040 - filled with sufficient zeal and foolishness to take on the task of restoring the ancestral honor and greatness, and canceling out the debilitating "Iraq syndrome." Until then, I don't think the threat of the odd occasional bombing run or cruise missile attack on some supposed al-Qaeda training camp or base in Iraq is likely to make much of an impact of the internal politics of the country.

If the US leaves Iraq, I assume our approach to any terrorism preceeding from that country will be similar to the approach we take in all the other countries we don't currently occupy. We might send some special forces guys to whack the bad guys, or apprehend them and send them off to a torture farm. Or we might pay someone else to whack them or send them off to a torture farm for us. And from time to time we might actually bomb something. Everyone knows these will be the likely responses, no matter what other more melodramatic threats the US makes. Iraqis will most likely regard any additional displays of grave and portentous American hyperventilation in retreat as arrant bullshit.

The thought of the US issuing threats on its way out of Iraq reminds me a bit of the scene of Will Smit leaving the alien pawn shop in Men in Black: "Yeah ... and uh ... I'm going to be back for those watches!"

Why don't we just leave and forget the posturing and melodrama?

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 14, 2007 8:17 PM

Matt,

Two questions on your proposal:

1) Would you consider offering the same deal to the Taliban in Afghanistan?

2) If a Democrat wins the presidency in '08 and we withdraw our troops after making this sort of arrangement with Iraq's Sunnis, do you really suppose President Obama or Edwards would send troops back into Iraq if the Sunnis renege? I can't imagine the Democratic base tolerating that.

Posted by Fred | April 15, 2007 3:18 AM

We can say all sorts of things. Why would anyone believe us? Last I saw, Bush was still President. Or is this a suggestion for a campaign promise for the Fall of '08?

Here's a simpler solution: we pull out of Iraq. If al Qaeda attacks us, we hit them back wherever they are.

Posted by calling all toasters | April 15, 2007 2:40 PM