Profile of a Suicide Bomber

The US military in Iraq has put together a profile of the typical AQI foreign fighter. Spencer Ackerman calls him Mr. AQI and reports:

But Iraq wasn't what he thought it would be. Mr. AQI wasn't an infantryman, where he'd bravely stand and fight Americans, he was pressured into being a suicide bomber. Nor were his targets the Americans he wanted to hit -- they were the Iraqis he came to avenge. According to Colonel Bacon, in some cases, Mr. AQI was happy to be in American custody, where he would no longer cause Iraq any more pain.

Let that sink in for a moment. For Mr. AQI has a lesson for us. Counterfactual conditionals are always problematic, but in all likelihood, according to MNF-I's own profile, if the United States. were not in Iraq, Mr. AQI would be back in his taxi in Algiers or Jedda. Were it not for Abu Ghraib -- which, of course, never would have happened had we not invaded -- Mr. AQI would never have felt that it was his religious duty to kill Americans.

Personally, I don't think you should regard counterfactual conditionals as a particularly problematic class of statement -- assertions about causation can be transformed into assertions about counterfactuals and vice versa. Which brings us to the point. People join AQI to fight us in Iraq. Our being in Iraq isn't stopping them from fighting us "over here," it's causing them to fight us "over there." Iraq would still have lots of problems if we left, of course, but there's every reason to believe the al-Qaeda element there would be rapidly wiped out with its supply of new recruits cut off.

Comments

What the hell stops Timmy or Tweety from looking Bush, Gates or Condi in the eye and asking what exactly it is that stops an al Qaida operative from coming to the U.S. (leaving border security aside) and causing havoc while at the same time his compatriots remain in Iraq and also cause havoc there? Why does the administration get away with portraying the two as incapable of happening simultaneously? If the press won't push the issue why doesn't Obama or Clinton ask the question?

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2008 2:03 PM

But assertions about causation *are* particularly problematic.

Posted by Unreconstructed Empiricist | March 19, 2008 2:03 PM

Our being in Iraq isn't stopping them from fighting us "over here," it's causing them to fight us "over there."

Huh? It IS "stopping them from fighting us 'over here'" BY "causing them to fight us 'over there.'"

Absent the US presence in Iraq, some of the suicide bombers might just be cab drivers in Jedda. But some might not - they might be planning attacks here in America instead of in Iraq.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 2:09 PM

BTW, I like counterfactuals. The counterfactual I believe is that, if didn't invade, the sanctions regime would rapidly have broken down. Saddam would be rebuilding his WMD capacity (as we found out was his plan all along). Lots of Iraqis would be getting killed. There would still be sectarian strife in Iraq, but it would mostly be Shia and Kurd getting slaughtered and oppressed by Sunni. We'd be farther than ever from democracy in the Middle East. And we'd have a lot more terrorism here in the US.

THAT'S the counterfactual that is most convincing. And the path down which liberals think we should have headed.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 2:14 PM

I'll hold out for something more lucid than Al's incomprehensible attempts at directly answering the question.

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2008 2:22 PM

Our being in Iraq isn't stopping them from fighting us "over here," it's causing them to fight us "over there."

Absent the US presence in Iraq, some of the suicide bombers might just be cab drivers in Jedda. But some might not - they might be planning attacks here in America instead of in Iraq.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 2:09 PM

The same thing is likely true w/ the current US presence in Iraq. The difference is that the current presence in Iraq motivates more people to get involved w/ AQ or start their own franchise.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 19, 2008 2:22 PM

Al,

May I ask? Does AQ represent a significant threat to the US currently. If so, what is the nature of that threat?

Posted by gbh | March 19, 2008 2:28 PM

This is not surprising. If you think back, the Iraqis shelled the section of Abu Ghraib which held women, rather than let their wives, mothers, and daughters live through U S interrogation. There is no rational argument that Iraqis are less likely to come to the US because of our invasion and subsequent occupation. There is a strong argument that our occupation made it more likely. Except of course that Bush's plan to use our armed forces as the cheese in an elaborate Iraq trap makes it unnecessary to travel to, say, Oklahoma city to kill Americans.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | March 19, 2008 2:35 PM

THAT'S the counterfactual that is most convincing.

I doubt that anyone, even you, is actually convinced by your notion. We'd kept Saddam trussed up since the end of the war, and trussing him up was far cheaper than the current war. (Which is due to run 1000 years according to McCain.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2008 2:50 PM

The belief that if we didn't fight them over there they'd be fighting us over here is similar to the sort of "reasoning" that would claim a preventive effect for human sacrifices.

Posted by Lurid Detail | March 19, 2008 3:13 PM

And if the United States were not in Iraq, they never would have attacked us on 9/11. Right?

Seriously, if we could expect them to pack up their bags and go home if we left, how come these "AQI" suicide bombers are so viciously and relentlessly attacking Iraqi Shitte men, women and children who have nothing to do with the US or its occupation?

I don't think the answers to these questions/contradictions are too hard to come by, if you're paying attention:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

Posted by Bill in Chicago | March 19, 2008 3:49 PM

"And if the United States were not in Iraq, they never would have attacked us on 9/11. Right? "

'They' didn't, wh*reson. *Al Qaida* attacked us, which was an enemy of Saddam.

D*mn, but after five f*cking years we still have these lying SOB's.

Posted by Barry | March 19, 2008 3:52 PM

It's inarguable that our invasion of Iraq amplified Al'Qaeda's message to those already predisposed to hear it. Inarguable. For these and many other reasons, the invasion was a massive strategic error.

Nevertheless, to stipulate this does not tell us whether or not we should leave Iraq now. Instead, we have an entirely new decision tree, with new probabilities and new dangers. What we don't have is a "My bad, game off."

But nobody is interested in that. Nobody here wants to think about this thing coldly, strategically. Instead, the conversation floats between moral outrage, finger-pointing, and concerns about brand dilution and popularity -- none of which approach the real-world problem of what to do with Iraq.

As is painfully clear in hindsight, the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq was the result of combining hubris with the worst kind of rose-colored predictions. But, worrisomely, most of the opposition is similarly shallow and reflexive; they were right to not want to break Iraq in the first place, but they are wrong to think that by doing so we haven't now bought it.

The fate of Iraq is now inextricably tied to America, whether we like it or not. It's true that we can't, by ourselves, put it back together, but it's equally true that we can't afford to leave it in pieces. We can blame Bush for putting us in this impossible position, and we should, but if we leave and everything falls apart (and it will), we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Posted by JA | March 19, 2008 5:09 PM

It is really about the dumbest assertion the Left has. That before we went into Iraq, several thousand Islamoids attended terror training camps in Afghanistan every three months and busied themselves blowing up US embassies, warships, killing Swiss tourists in Luxor and Tunisia, killing hundreds in Beruit, finishing the slaughter phases in Algeria, Sudan, and Nigeria of 2.3 million infidels, killing off 1/2 the Christians on Sulewesi and 1/3rd the infidel population of East Timor and butchering whole villages of heretic Shiite Hazdi near Herat, plotted to blow up 16 planes over the Pacific and kill the Pope....
But after 9/11 radical Islamists from Canada to KSA to Indonesia went into a peaceful navel-gazing and thumb-sucking phase, according to the Lefty narrative, and were only roused by Iraq. Otherwise, they would have nothing to do with terror acts elsewhere. And Lefties stay they are right because terror has almost completely dried up as the Islamoids focused on trying to take on armed US marines rather then tourists on Holiday, NYC Jews that hate BUsh and America almost as much as the terrorists do, and Russian schoolkids.

The alternate view is in AQ letters complaining that they have nearly stripped their ME, European networks of combat element operatives, bomb-makers, and untrained young recruits that in turn have readily talked when captured under Anbar tribesman, Shiite heretic "persuasion" - betraying the recruiters, terror Mullahs, financiers, logistics people back in the networks. That they have lost over 10,000, have 2,000 captured in Iraq, and over 4,000 now rounded up and in some cases "disappearing" in KSA, other Arab countries, and Europe. And that the people have turned against them and they are being hunted down like dogs.
And meanwhile, the Lefty's "Real AQ", just those left alive from one radical Islamic attack made 9/11 - are writing letters complaining they are broke and in hiding and unable to move around much - and AQI and AQ Europe must urgently send them money as Gulf financiers are laying low, or having unfortunate accidents or arrests where they give up radical Islamoids to preserve their luxurious lifestyles as Saudi princelings or Yemeni merchants...

The Euros are politically beholden to their own effeminant nervous nellies so don't speak out on the Iraq war's effects much - but the assessment of the French DST, Russian KGB, and Israeli intelligence have concluded the decision by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to make Iraq "Al Qaeda's Central Front" and order all global assets that could be freed up west of Iran to converge there and fight has been a complete catastrophy for AQ.

Posted by chris ford | March 19, 2008 5:29 PM

Boy, am I glad to learn from chris ford that, while bombs were going off all over the place before his Dear Leader put his foot down, things are calm now and the Bad Guys are on the run. Before reading his informed post, I actually thought it was the other way around.

As a European, may I say that it is Americans who are nervous nellies, going into a fit any time someone says Boo or puts out a video, while we have calmly dealt with terrorism for decades without ever hitting ourselves in our own faces, starting unnecessary wars, or tearing our constitutions into little shreds.

You don't win against terrorists by giving them what they want, and what they want is a (preferably self-destructive) reaction and lots of attention. You Americans go into panic mode much too easily.

Posted by Hans B | March 19, 2008 7:41 PM

"Saddam would be rebuilding his WMD capacity (as we found out was his plan all along)"

This is not true.

Once the UNSCOM inspectors had cleared Saddam of having WMDs, a monitoring program was to be put in place under the same UN resolution which would have prevented Saddam from ever rebuilding his (non-existent) WMD arsenal. According to the experts, there would have been absolutely no way Saddam could have rebuilt a nuclear program under that monitoring regime - at least not without kicking out the monitors and thus restarting the cause for attacking him.

Bush deliberately jumped the gun, kicked out the inspectors and attacked before the inspectors had finished their job. This is incontrovertible history - which Powell and the rest of the right wing jerks ignore.

"The fate of Iraq is now inextricably tied to America, whether we like it or not. It's true that we can't, by ourselves, put it back together, but it's equally true that we can't afford to leave it in pieces. We can blame Bush for putting us in this impossible position, and we should, but if we leave and everything falls apart (and it will), we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves."

This is a complete bullshit line of argument. It basically says, "Throw up our hands and just keep on keeping on - regardless of the likely outcome." The assertion that "we broke it, now we own it" is a completely content-free assertion, having nothing to do with reality. The reality is "We broke it, it's now their problem - and probably will be our problem as well in the future - but right now there's not a damn thing we can do about it. IT'S BROKEN, MORONS! What part of "it's broken and cannot be put together again BY US" don't you get?"

The only possible outcome at this point is to cut our losses, pull out, and wait to see what the ultimate damage actually is - and try to deal with it as it progresses from the outside, with as much regional assistance as can be fostered with the little US credibility there is left.

There is no other alternative. Remaining merely prolongs and increases the damage both to Iraq and the US military and the US taxpayer. Leaving at least will cut the cost to the military and taxpayer, if not the Iraqis. Citing some meaningless and unworkable "moral imperative" to continue to fuck up Iraq is not an option.

Meanwhile, Ford's nonsense about Al Qaeda in Iraq being "defeated" is just ridiculous. Even the US military in Iraq admits that Al Qaeda is there to stay, even if it never achieves its goals or manages to regain the influence it had in the last couple of years. And thus the bottom line is that Al Qaeda would not be there AT ALL if it wasn't for the invasion.

Bottom line: More Al Qaeda than not - net loss for the US. Q.E.D.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 8:28 PM

Hack - Even the US military in Iraq admits that Al Qaeda is there to stay, even if it never achieves its goals or manages to regain the influence it had in the last couple of years.

Funny, I must have missed the chain of command in Iraq asserting that Al Qaeda was going to be victorious in establishing a stable base in Iraq, and was there to stay.

And thus the bottom line is that Al Qaeda would not be there AT ALL if it wasn't for the invasion.

Right. Just like Al Qaeda would not be in Lebanon, Morocco, KSA, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, if it wasn't for the US invading those countries. Or the US invasion of Germany, the Philppines, Sudan, Spain, UK, and Indonesia explaining those elements of Al Qaeda there.
Memo to Hack. Pick a less stupid Lefty narrative than the "AQ is peaceful and only goes where the US invades" one to post. You only look the fool again.

*************
Hans B - while (we Euros) have calmly dealt with terrorism for decades without ever hitting ourselves in our own faces, starting unnecessary wars, or tearing our constitutions into little shreds.

Nice try. Pacifism and appeasement as wisdom.

Posted by chris ford | March 20, 2008 2:11 AM

You guys are making Al feel so special. He doesn't know what he is saying, he doesn't care. His job is to fling bullshit. Ignore him and he'll bother someone else. Same for the dumbass Chris Ford.

Posted by merlallen | March 20, 2008 3:17 AM

Thanks to JA for a sensible and basically correct post. Minor caveats:

--to a certain extent the damage has been enhanced by anti-American propaganda in the Western press that's "shallow and reflexive". The knee-jerk left has done a lot of Al Qaeda's work for them.

--aside from spreading outright lies about the invasion's "illegality", critical stats, and its "unilateral" nature, the press has almost completely ignored the historical context. No one who is familiar with the state of Iraq in, say, 2002 could possibly say that "we broke it". Iraq was pitifully broken by the Ba'athist regime, with the UN playing a major role in assisting. We were complicit in enormous crimes after 1991 and BEFORE 2003 because we wanted to solve this long standing problem on the cheap.

I agree with Hans B that we have vastly over-reacted to "the terrorist threat", but I've got my doubts about the track record of the European approach. While they certainly haven't panicked, they have developed a bizarre sub-culture in which radical Islamists are given the protected status of exotic zoo animals within unassimilated ghettos. Able to live on generous welfare benefits while prevented from getting on with life as Muslim immigrants do in the US, they have lots of time on their hands to contemplate the injustices of the world while enjoying guaranteed rights unthinkable back home, as well as a nice politically-correct cachet and passports that allow visa-free travel to the US. That's why the most significant terrorist threat to the US doesn't come from Waziristan, but from places like London, Hamburg, and the Paris suburbs.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 20, 2008 3:42 AM

Robert Powell,

I don't think that the European approach to immigration is any good either, but to say that we have developed a bizarre subculture in reaction to terrorism is not true. And zoo animals is putting it a little strong.

One aspect of assimilation that is almost never discussed is the educational level of the immigrants. Of course Muslims are better assimilated in the US - you only take in the highly educated ones. Latinos are better assimilated in Europe - we only take in the highly educated ones. You border Mexico, we border Morocco and Turkey.

Chris Ford, the best example of appeasement I can think of is when extremist Muslims threatened violence because of the Danish cartoons. In reaction magazines all over Europe published those cartoons (which would never have been done without the threat, because the cartoons were of appalling quality). The only Western country where not a single media outlet had the guts to do that, was the United States. The European reaction to terrorism has not been to appease it, but to treat it the way it should be treated - as a police affair, not as a war far less a crusade.

Posted by Hans B | March 20, 2008 5:57 AM

"Huh? It IS "stopping them from fighting us 'over here'" BY "causing them to fight us 'over there.'"

Absent the US presence in Iraq, some of the suicide bombers might just be cab drivers in Jedda. But some might not - they might be planning attacks here in America instead of in Iraq.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 2:09 PM"

There isn't a static number of terrorists. Guess what happens when you drop a bomb on someone's house and kill their children? Mommy and daddy now want to blow you up while beforehand mommy and daddy were busy raising Timmy and Susie.

"to a certain extent the damage has been enhanced by anti-American propaganda in the Western press that's "shallow and reflexive". The knee-jerk left has done a lot of Al Qaeda's work for them."

OMG Michael Moore oh noes! Al-Qaida, especially bin Laden, was pretty up-front that they wanted to get the US involved in a drawn-out fight in the Arab world. They wanted the Iraq War to happen. After all, the whole point of attacking the "far enemy" (Us) instead of the "near enemy" (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) was to make it harder for the US to support Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. by draining our resources and making us tired of being involved in the Middle East. How is the fact we did exactly what bin Laden wanted the fault of the "knee-jerk left?" You care more about your Dolchstoßlegende masturbation so you can blame everything on the people who were right and thus spare yourself any responsibility than thinking things through.

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 12:17 PM

Hans--I didn't say, and don't think, that Europe developed a bizarre subculture in reaction to terrorism. I think it developed a bizarre subculture in response to Muslim immigration in the context of the pre-existing leftist political culture.

Our current immigration problem is, as you imply, essentially a problem with Mexico (as opposed to Mexicans). At the end of the day, we assimilate immigrants of all sorts better than Europe because here everyone has to, and can, go to work.

Reality Man should get a new nom de plume. Reality requires verifiable data. Simply saying that people who have views different from the accepted wisdom media script are lying without citing a single factual error is not reality based argumentation. We have been destined for "a drawn-out fight in the Arab world" for a long time. I prefer that we win, don't you? Let's talk about who was "right" when the war's over.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 20, 2008 6:26 PM