Occupation is Hard

Rich Lowry argues against yours truly that the problem with leaving the Sunnis alone to fight it out with al-Qaeda "is that if we absented ourselves, al Qaeda would prevail." Frankly, I doubt it. As we've seen over and over again, local support matters a lot. It's extremely difficult for a foreign force to sustain itself in the face of hostile public sentiment even if the foreign force is in some sense superior from a technical point of view.

To me, the overestimation of al-Qaeda's ability to impose its will upon Iraqis is just of a piece with earlier overestimation of the United States' ability to impose our will upon Iraqis. This stuff is hard. It's crucial to recall that the Taliban was not just a religious movement, but also an expression of Pashto nationalism, and that that the Taliban had a lot of trouble expanding into areas where other ethnicities predominated.

Comments

Why would Al Qaida succeed in Iraq? It's like saying that the Mafia would succeed in Spain.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 12, 2007 9:04 AM

Funny, that suddenly every time anyone argues for occupying Iraq forever the reason is al-Qaeda but Juan Cole, who understands Iraq as well as any analyst anywhere, never seems to mention al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, especially in these surgy times, is evidently everywhere in Iraq; millions and millions.

Posted by Jennifer | June 12, 2007 9:25 AM

Not to agree with Lowry, but isn't Al Qaeda in Iraq, mostly Iraqis?

The reason they seem to be rubbing so many fellow Shiite's the wrong way is that they are challenging the traditional power brokers, tribes and Baathists. This is not to say they are likely to win in a Sunni intra-mural, far from it. I just wouldn't buy the Bush line that they're all foreigners stirring up trouble too quickly.

Posted by AJ | June 12, 2007 9:32 AM

"fellow Shiite's"

Fellow Sunnis, you mean. Other than that, agreed. The general consensus is that AQI and the associated ISI are now mostly Iraqi Sunnis albeit with foreign leadership.

The Islamic Army in Iraq are Sunni Iraqis, but Ahmed Hashim thinks they are hardcore Salafis who are in the same strain as AQI, though they lack the internationalist bent (they won't "follow us home"). They have a long history of working together before their recent fallout (and now perhaps ceasefire).

Posted by tequila | June 12, 2007 9:53 AM

We're winning!

Posted by Rich L. | June 12, 2007 10:47 AM

Sorry to say, Matt seems to have bought into hawkish propaganda. The entity callling itself 'Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers' is an Iraqi salafist militia. By taking the name of Al Qaeda they borrow the prestige of 9-11, and by aquiescing in this the real Al Qaeda borrows the prestige of being on the current front line.

I don't buy that the Sunni salafists will prevail over the Sunni Arab nationalists, but not because the former are foreign to Iraq. They aren't.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 12, 2007 11:21 AM

Lowry's being disingenuous. The Washington Post article states that al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters had moved into Amiriyah because the Sunni tribes had pushed them out of Anbar. One of the Bush administration's main justifications for remaining in Iraq was that al-Qaeda would set up bases for attacking the U.S. in Anbar. It looks like that danger has passed.

Posted by Ric Caric | June 12, 2007 11:23 AM

It's crucial to recall that the Taliban was not just a religious movement, but also an expression of Pashto nationalism

Indeed.

One of the things I realized early on about the Taliban is a lot of their "religious" thuggery was really about nationalism. At the time the Taliban really cemented their control of Afghanistan, I happened to have many aquaintances from that country. It was interesting how a Pashtun friend of mine, who was fairly secular and liberal, was saying the "attrocities" of the Taliban were being overblown while a more religious dorm-mate of mine (who was not Pashtun) thought the Taliban were evil.

Eventually it became obvious that the Taliban were harrassing non-Pashtuns for reasons of their tribal affiliation and using religious strictures as an excuse.

The one smart thing, indeed, that Bush & CO did was to make sure a Pashtun was placed in charge of Afghanistan. If they were as smart about Iraq, they would have made a Sunni Arab (albeit one with deep ties to the Shi'ite community) the interim prime minister.

Indeed, that is how Tito worked so well in Yugoslavia -- he was a Croat/Slovene, but with deep ties to the Serbian community: so when the Croat dominated (puppet for the Nazis) government fell to the Serb dominated chetniks, it was good that a Slovene/Croat was in charge so no-one would feel like a vengeance genocide was likely to take place ... we failed to do that in Iraq, and look what has happened ...

Posted by DAS | June 12, 2007 11:57 AM

Uhh, DAS, the (WW2) chetniks were hardcore Serbian nationalists/royalists (Drazha Mihailovic and company). The Partisans (formally the "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia") fought against the chetniks (who were at times in 1943 and later co-belligerents with the Germans, the Italians, the Ustashe, etc. - look up "Fall Weiss", for example).

Posted by empiricus | June 12, 2007 12:34 PM

Nobody's overestimating "Al Qaeda" (or whoever happens to be using that name in Iraq at the moment). They're just grabbing for the nearest convenient propaganda crutch to keep our troops occupying Iraq. Why do you think the Lowrys of the world even believe the crap they hand out?

Posted by mq | June 12, 2007 1:01 PM

So Lowry is saying that Al Qaeda can succeed where the US military has failed? Why does he hate America?

Posted by Rob | June 12, 2007 2:28 PM

Wait, with our soldiers over there, isn't al Qaeda certain to take over in the U.S.????

Posted by calling all toasters | June 12, 2007 2:30 PM

When Lowry says "Al-Qeada" do he mean the actual "Al-Qeada Iraq" which is really a small part the insurgency (which I believe is 2% of all fighters), or do he use that word as an umbrella for all sunni insurgent groups like the 1920 Brigades which are more nationalist and not concerned with world-wide caliphates? I'm guessing the latter.

Posted by Sapper | June 12, 2007 3:11 PM

David Tomlin: "The entity callling itself 'Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers' is an Iraqi salafist militia. By taking the name of Al Qaeda they borrow the prestige of 9-11, and by aquiescing in this the real Al Qaeda borrows the prestige of being on the current front line."

David, where did you learn this? I'm honestly very interested to know.

Posted by Matt Tievsky | June 12, 2007 6:33 PM