Emboldening

Via Patrick Barry, Max Boot offers a slightly different twist on the emboldening argument: "Just as Islamist militants were emboldened by the Soviet Union's retreat from Afghanistan in 1989, so they would be encouraged by our premature departure from Iraq."

This kind of thing really needs to be taken apart. Did the emboldened militants follow the Red Army home from Afghanistan? No. Rather, a few years after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan the USSR collapsed under the weight of accumulated economic problems that had been exacerbated by the long and fruitless war in Afghanistan. Now it's true that Osama bin Laden has been known to cite the mujahedeen's success against the Soviets as evidence that his war on America is feasible. But to argue that Mikhail Gorbachev should have continued the occupation of Afghanistan indefinitely in order to prevent a terrorist attack in Manhattan twelve years later is absurd. In retrospect, there are a lot of things one wishes were done differently with regard to Afghanistan in the years 1989-2001 but endless Soviet occupation isn't one of them.

Meanwhile, it continues to astound me how focused conservative thinkers are on purely subjective factors as key influences on events in the world. Does it really make sense to think that the main thing we should worry about is that al-Qaeda operatives will get bolder? (for the thousandth time, they seem pretty bold already) The Iraq War is, in an objective sense, squandering American resources and degrading the operational effectiveness of the U.S. security services while also, in an objective sense, bolstering al-Qaeda manpower. This sort of thing -- the impact of our policies on the real world -- seems much more important to me than the subjective emotional state of hard-core killers.

Comments

Actually, the analogy seems an EXTREMELY good one.

(1) Soviet Union stupidly invades Afghanistan, kills a vast number of Afghans, fights a losing war, becomes socially and financially bankrupt as a results, collapses...

(2) United States stupidly invades Iraq, kills a vast number of Iraqis, fights a losing war, becomes socially and financially bankrupt as a results, collapses?...

Wonder which gigantic country Osama will decide to lure into a trap and overthrow next...

Posted by RKU | April 1, 2008 10:01 AM

I thought the terrorists were all "cowards" anyway, right? Actually, you don't see that particular schoolyard taunt used as much these days.

Posted by Glenn | April 1, 2008 10:03 AM

If Al Queda wants to fight us in Iraq, and John McCain says that Osama told him so, we better fight it in Iraq, or Osama will be mighty upset and send his minions to fight Max Boot over here in Manhattan.

Posted by gregor | April 1, 2008 10:08 AM

When is the last time the Republicans had a serious thinker amongst their midst? I just read his Wikipedia page. Max Boot is a consultant to the US Military? WTF??? He's also a foreign policy adviser to Saint McCain. Go figure!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 1, 2008 10:12 AM

Maybe it's really all about...the subjective emotional state of the neocons.

Posted by elle loco | April 1, 2008 10:14 AM

Also, isn't there the small matter of the US supporting the mujahadeen? It seems to me that they were emboldened by all those shipments of Stinger missiles.

Posted by sivapith | April 1, 2008 10:15 AM

The covert support of the mujahedeen undertaken by the US at that time - another poorly thought out foreign policy initiative against communism - has probably done more to embolden global Islamism than either the entry of the Soviets into Afghanistan or their defeat. It's questionable whether Afghanistan would have been nearly as much of a military quagmire for the Soviets were it not for American weapons.

Posted by STC | April 1, 2008 10:26 AM

As I said in 2004:

"It was easy for us to provoke this administration and lure it into perdition... We are continuing to make America bleed to the point of bankruptcy, by God's will...

"It would not be accurate to say that al-Qaeda has defeated the White House administration... for on closer inspection, it cannot be said that al-Qaeda is the sole reason for these amazing gains. The White House leadership, which is so keen to open up war fronts for its various corporations, whether in the field of arms, oil, or constructions, has also contributed to these remarkable results for al-Qaeda.

"To some analysts and diplomats, it seems as if we and the White House are on the same team shooting at the United States' goal, despite our different intentions."

Osama bin Laden, The Towers of Lebanon, October 29 2004

Posted by Osama bin Laden | April 1, 2008 10:28 AM

Rather, a few years after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan the USSR collapsed under the weight of accumulated economic problems that had been exacerbated by the long and fruitless war in Afghanistan.

Oh, now that's reassuring.

Posted by goethean | April 1, 2008 10:56 AM

If we lose in Iraq AND Afghanistan, many undecided Muslims will go with the Islamists.

Weird how McCain gets away with his "I'll never retreat" talk when he supported leaving Afghanistan unsecured.

Posted by Owen | April 1, 2008 11:19 AM

On the "emboldening" question: I think Matt's being a bit obtuse here. The concern is that a US withdrawal from Iraq will embolden Al Qaeda in the sense that they will be able to use the propaganda victory to improve organizational cohesiveness and morale and to drive additional recruitment, making it easier for them to mount additional attacks against the US or (more plausibly) US interests overseas. In this worldview, invading may make you hated but it also makes you feared; withdrawing now would be worse, because you would have a cadre of motivated Al Qaeda agents, excited about pressing their advantage, and looking for somewhere to do it.

Now, you can agree or disagree with this as a point of view. (Certainly it seems plausible to me that a withdrawal from Iraq will lead to an uptick in attacks on US interest elsewhere in the Middle East; but it also seems to me that it will lead to an improvement in the situation for the Iraqis, and that the longer the occupation goes on the more Al Qaeda will be able to recruit.) But to dismiss it as caring about "the subjective emotional state of hard-core killers", just because that's one of the things "emboldening" means, smacks of a wilful misunderstanding.

Posted by william | April 1, 2008 11:19 AM

If we lose in Iraq AND Afghanistan, many undecided Muslims will go with the Islamists.

Weird how McCain gets away with his "I'll never retreat" talk when he supported leaving Afghanistan unsecured.

Posted by Owen | April 1, 2008 11:20 AM

"Meanwhile, it continues to astound me how focused conservative thinkers are on purely subjective factors as key influences on events in the world"

But only when they're talking about other countries. Whereas for the USA itself, it's always vital to spend $500B/year plus on the military; and to drive away any allies and lose any moral advantage by engaging in lawlessness and torture.

What passes for orthodoxy in the Republican party these days has no consistent principles, nor logic, nor any connection to reality. You decide what you want to do, based on xenophobia, profits for big donors, and pandering to voters in key districts on Karl Rove's map. And then you invent some bluster and scaremongering to justify it.

I do believe that there's an honorable tradition of "conservative thinkers"; but I don't think we should grant Bush/Cheney Republicans the credit of any association with that tradition.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 1, 2008 11:26 AM

Re "Meanwhile, it continues to astound me how focused conservative thinkers are on purely subjective factors as key influences on events in the world"
-----------------
Er.. Matthew. They're not trying to make a HONEST argument. They're trying to drag some camouflage over their REAL agenda.

Because most voters would not approve of sending their kids off to die just to grab some oil deposits for Exxon CEOs making $400 Million.

Didn't your philosophy class ever read Socrates' story about the prisoners in the cave? Thinking that the shadows on the cave wall are reality? Not realizing people behind them are making those shadows?

Socrates really hit the nail on the head describing Fox News and the right wing propaganda machine. As well as the New York Times.

Posted by Don Williams | April 1, 2008 11:26 AM

MY - The Iraq War is, in an objective sense, squandering American resources and degrading the operational effectiveness of the U.S. security services while also, in an objective sense, bolstering al-Qaeda manpower.

Lefty crap.

By declaring Iraq as Al Qaeda's central front, AQ stripped out the majority of their Euro, N African, and ME operatives and sent them into Iraq or dedicated them to supporting the Iraq War activities (though the Lefty myth is that AQ would have peacefully just had all its members loiter about with their thumbs up their asses in those countries but for America FORCING them to act like terrorists and Jihadis).

By going to Iraq though, AQ no longer faced helpless plane passengers, Beslan schoolkids, or unarmed Haziri heretic villages - but Marines with automatic weapons, A-10s, shiite militias, and some soon to be very unhappy Sunni Arabs. Nor did they imagine that so many of their operatives would not fight to the death but be captured with no terrorist civil liberties loving Lefties or ACLU Jews within 1000 miles of them. The result is besides the slaughter inside Iraq, nests of Islamoids in host Euro, N African, and ME countries have been smoked out by interrogations and dead Islamoid's forensics and analysis of their possessions and "electronic trails".

Bagging more Islamoids.

And drying up recruitment and finances which have even hit the 6 or so old leaders hiding in Pakistan (The "real AQ Problem" as Lefties and the Black Messiah refer to them, as opposed to the 10,000+ slaughtered or captured since Iraq started.). In captured letters, the ones hiding from the US beg AQ to send them money.

"in an objective sense, bolstering al-Qaeda manpower" - NOT!

Posted by chris ford | April 1, 2008 11:31 AM

ACLU Jews? Now I'm really confused about who the good guys are.

Posted by william | April 1, 2008 11:40 AM

Israel's victories in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 failed to disembolden the terrorists into depressed passivity, and I'd argue those victories were at least as dramatic and decisive as the one we're winning in Iraq, although Chris Ford would obviously disagree and cite evidence that AQ stripped out the majority of their Euro, N African, and ME operatives and sent them into Iraq or dedicated them to supporting the Iraq War activities.

Posted by aleks | April 1, 2008 11:42 AM

I just want to challenge your "Charlie Wilson's War" version of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Stalinism was actually dismantled from within by Gorbachev. His liberalizations proved more radical than the creaky Soviet Empire could bear. Reagan didn't somehow wrestle Gorby him to the ground in the hills of Afghanistan.

Posted by Adrian | April 1, 2008 11:45 AM

Yep, "Chris Ford" is absolutely 100% right!

It's all them thar "Lefty Jews" who oppose Bush's brilliant strategic plan to defeat Al Qaeda by invading Iraq, with Pat Buchanan, Zbig Brzezinski, and Ron Paul taking the lead.

Betcha if we checked, we'd discover that Buchanan, Zbig, and Paul are all even members of the same synagogue, which is where they probably hatched the plot...

Posted by RKU | April 1, 2008 11:56 AM

If supporting the Muj in Afghanistan led to the fall of the Soviet Union, it was of course worth it even if it led directly to 9-11. Trading an enemy superpower with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons for a few bandits hiding in caves is a pretty clear strategic gain.
Of course, a big fraction of Americans can't quite seem to understand that superpowers are inherently more dangerous than bandits - at least 10,000 times more dangerous - but it's true whether they understand it or not.

Posted by gcochran | April 1, 2008 12:07 PM

Re Chris Ford's "ACLU Jews "
-----------
Omigod. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Does that mean I was circumscised one night by ACLU Ninjas while asleep --in a secret conversion ceremoney?

Gulp.

I'm afraid to look.

Posted by Don Williams | April 1, 2008 12:15 PM

How do you intimidate a suicide attacker? Why does our fight in Iraq prevent AQ from attacking anywhere at the time and method of their choosing?

Posted by Kelly | April 1, 2008 12:57 PM

Indeed Chris. In what way does having US forces in Iraq prevent Al Qaida operatives from attacking US civilians at home?

And if there is none, does it not seem that AQ clearly prefers--or is at least well satisfied with--attacks on US forces in Iraq rather than the US mainland? Does that not indicate AQ strategic goals are somehow served by having US forces in Iraq?

I submit that the purpose of attacks on US soil was primarily to lure the country into a major deployment on Arab/Muslim territory overseas, where AQ's aims would be assisted by enormous force multipliers. They have now served their purpose. After all, the number of "AQ operatives" in Iraq is zero, or close to it, while the number of fighters opposed to US forces is estimated in the hundreds of thousands. It costs Al Qaida nothing, and costs the US trillions.

Now it's hard to say what the endgame is exactly, I think the AQ plan was always a bit fuzzy on that score, but it seems to be going well enough so far. The US is overextended and hemorrhaging money, soldiers, and international goodwill. Any sympathy the US had in the Arab/Muslim world has been erased, while identification with AQ's political aims is greater than ever.

How is this a successful policy?

Posted by jack lecou | April 1, 2008 1:54 PM

With regard to Afghanistan posted above, I find it interesting that no one's siezed on McCain's "I'd follow OBL to the gates of Hell" statement.

Because, uh, that's basically what we did at Tora Bora. And then Bin Laden actually went through the gates of hell into Pakistan, and we let him go. We sent our army after Saddam Hussein instead, because a bunch of nincompoops thought it'd be an easier fight with more strategic value.

Saddam Hussein is dead and buried, yet apparently he's still such a threat that we've got more troops than ever in Iraq. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, is right where he was in 2001--on a couple top 10 lists, but certainly not the central front of the war on terror.

You want to worry about emboldening terrorists, how's about letting Osama bin Laden get away?

Posted by anon | April 1, 2008 2:19 PM

Why don't we embolden the U.S. army by pulling out of Iraq and kicking the ass of the tiny group of dead enders in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Posted by brianr | April 1, 2008 2:51 PM

Jack Lecou - Indeed Chris. In what way does having US forces in Iraq prevent Al Qaida operatives from attacking US civilians at home?

It is not only "civilians in the CONUS" we are concerned about, but our people and interests abroad, and our allies. AQ was blowing up our embassies, warships, assassinating our diplomats, businessmen, and tourists overseas and killing people in friendly nations - before 9/11 happened.

By declaring Iraq as the Central Front and no other priority mattering, (like hits on infidels in the US and elsewhere), AQ was drawn in and has been chewed up rather good by our military, which they have found a lot more deadly than our civilians. And blown the secrecy of many of their Islamoid nests of operatives in other countries because of their haste in getting to Iraq, notably in Europe, Canada, KSA, Morocco. They had no idea that we would capture so many and, - thousands of miles away from lawyers and with the possibility of being turned over to Shiite "power tool lovers" or vengeful Sunni tribemen - that so many would talk so freely - leading to the arrest, "unfortunate deaths", or the monitoring by other nation's intelligence branches - of over 1,000 in KSA, 700 in Morocco & Algeria, a few hundred in Egypt, several hundred we know of now in Europe inc. countries that thought they had no Islamoid problem, like Sweden and Switzerland.

After all, the number of "AQ operatives" in Iraq is zero, or close to it,

Funny, given Ayman al-Zawahiri's bitching about losing thousands of operatives killed or worse, captured in Iraq, and his begging of AQ in Iraq to send him money.

Any sympathy the US had in the Arab/Muslim world has been erased, while identification with AQ's political aims is greater than ever.

That is not what the polls say, as Arab countries have heard AQ mainly kills fellow Muslims and is hated anywhere they take power. As for sympathy, Muslims have lacked that capacity with infidels since their early spawning. But they do fear infidels and respect and don't fuck with infidels when they have cause. And they have just cause to fear what the US can do if they play footsie with Islamoid terrorists too much - the US may just whomp them and not stick around to be targets in the future for some misguided nation-building and democracy project most Americans now believe Muslims incapable of doing on their own after being soured on the whole "Noble Iraqi" experience.
1st Rule of Diplomacy. "If you can't be loved, ensure that you are feared if trifled with."

*******************
Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, is right where he was in 2001--on a couple top 10 lists, but certainly not the central front of the war on terror.
You want to worry about emboldening terrorists, how's about letting Osama bin Laden get away?
Posted by anon

Only the Left has raised bin Laden into some Moby Dick, who if only taken down after being found in the vast oceans he hides in - will restore balance to the universe as No Terror Could Ever Happen Without Mr. Big Orchestrating It.

If Lefties were taken at their word, Americans would be fearful of the declarations of Black Messiah and others that they will invade Pakistan, possibly trigger a full war up to nuclear, just so one guy in hiding can be whacked or turned over to his ACLU Jewish defense team....

That is, if we find him. With us controlling Iraq and 80% of Iraqis as well as us looking for his ass, it still took 9 months to find Saddam.

Fortunately, we all know Black Messiah and any self-respecting Lefty lacks the balls to declare war on Pakistan. And all the "get bin Laden" talk is just posturing.

Posted by chris ford | April 1, 2008 3:11 PM

Chris Ford's April Fools humor raises a good point. Some voters are naive enough to believe that because the Republicans have stopped talking about al Qaeda's leadership, that means the continued destablization of Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn't matter. Some Republicans even seem to believe that invading Iraq reduced the number of jihadis.

Unfortunately, Dems can't run on "we told you so". But they can run on "McCain was wrong to surrender Afghanistan, and 8 years after Sept. 11 he still doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites."

Posted by Owen | April 1, 2008 3:54 PM

Whoa, that 8 button is right next to the 7, and I didn't proof read. Sorry Senator McCain, it's only been 7 years for you to figure out what's going on.

Posted by Owen | April 1, 2008 4:00 PM

One way to sell an Iraq drawdown is with strategic vision. Iraq is not the key battleground in the fight against Al Qaeda. If we killed every AQ terrorist who is now in Iraq, and every AQ terrorist who enters Iraq in the future, we would be no closer to fully defeating AQ than we are today. Yet, the majority of our resources in Iraq. It makes no sense. Obama should make some version of that argument, and I don't think McCain can explain why we're focusing on a peripheral theatre.

Posted by American Citizen | April 1, 2008 4:11 PM

Great point American Citizen. Bin Laden wants to fight us in Iraq because he doesn't live there. Iraq is no threat to core AQ and it gives them a chance to regroup.

McCain says we should fight AQ in Iraq because that's where bin Laden wants to fight us, which raises the obvious question of how McCain would be any better than Bush.

Posted by Owen | April 1, 2008 4:52 PM

April Fool's Day . . . the one day of the year when Right-Wing-Whacko commentary doesn't seem out of place.

Posted by CN | April 1, 2008 5:34 PM

Chris Ford is a fool every day and month of the year.

"In this worldview, invading may make you hated but it also makes you feared;"

Well, no, it just makes you hated. The only people afraid of you are people without guns. Al Qaeda has guns - and explosives. And the more you invade, the more people figure they need to get guns and explosives - and nukes.

The US has already lost in Iraq. Forcing the US to withdraw will not be a victory for Al Qaeda in any event - since Al Qaeda had very little to do with it. It will be the Sunni and Shia nationalists who forced the US to withdraw. They will be "emboldened", but nobody cares since their only concern is who runs Iraq.

So Al Qaeda does not significantly benefit from a US withdrawal in real terms, and only slightly in propaganda terms. And if the US wasn't in the wrong in the Middle East generally, the propaganda win wouldn't matter.

The only way to beat Al Qaeda is to change US foreign policy to remove Al Qaeda's complaints against the US. Which is a no-brainer since that foreign policy is doing nothing for the US in reality and everything for Israel in the first place.

Unless, of course, you believe that the primary goal of the US is to support its military-industrial complex based economy by continually engaging in wars for Israel, oil companies and war profiteers.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 1, 2008 6:21 PM

Well, let's see. Chris Ford thinks our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a brilliant strategic victory, crippling our enemies and vastly boosting American power and prestige.

On a couple of occasions, Ford has backed up his arguments by citing the personal expertise he acquired serving in (I think) the U.S. Navy during the late 1980s (?) based in the Gulf. Presumably, he was a Lieutenant j.g. or something.

Now my friend Bill Odom sharply disagrees. He's repeatedly described our crazy Iraq as "the greatest strategic disaster in all of American history". Odom was the three-star general who served as head of National Security for Ronald Reagan.

Similarly, Jim Webb was so strongly opposed to the crazy Iraq War that he left the Republican Party over that issue and ran for the Senate as a Democrat. Webb was Reagan's Secretary of the Navy.

Now admittedly, our friend Ford is such a supreme strategic genius that he should have been immediately promoted from Lt. (j.g.) to four-star flag-rank admiral, thereby outranking Odom and Webb, and perhaps he left the Service when his request for that promotion was callously denied, thereby revealing that all those "Lefty Jews" had gained control of the Naval High Command.

And I do sometimes wonder whether Odom's real name isn't "Odomowitz" and whether Webb might be short for "Webbstein." So maybe they're secretly both members of Pat Buchanan's own synagogue, which would explain everything....

Posted by RKU | April 1, 2008 11:07 PM

Naah, RKU, I've heard they're secretly black and Muslim. A lot of Porcelana can do wonders.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 2:40 AM

APR,1,2008

good day for a fool to write a story. Looks like a lot of you that were not there fell for it! We knew exactly what was going to happen when VN fell. Remember the killing fields of Cambodia. We abandoned those poor people, three million plus murdered because we did not finish what we started. Are you liberals going to deny it happpened? Kicked out of Thailand because they could not trust us, or our promises. Yes I was one of the cold warriors. For twenty years I proudly wore the uniform of my country. How did we win the same way we won WW2. We outproduced the enemy. He could not keep up and knew it was futile. As to the intelligent governments of Europe that are afraid to stand up to AQ remember what appeasement did for them before WW2. Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Smile The truth hurts!

Posted by Joe ripp | April 2, 2008 6:12 AM