One of Ours

Would Al Qaeda have been shut down sooner / more thoroughly if Iraq hadn't drawn our attention and resources?

...There is reason to believe that in fact the process of pursuing al Qaeda would not have been any faster or more successful if we had not invaded Iraq. The struggle against al Qaeda involves different resources, and it wasn't actually necessary to divert any resources from the shadow war against al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq.

In fact, it's arguable that the invasion of Iraq may have had the opposite effect, and reduced the number of al Qaeda attacks elsewhere. For one thing, the invasion of Iraq, and Saddam's capture while hiding in a septic tank, led to Qaddafi's decision to capitulate in December. His decision appears to have been genuine, and Libya has totally opened the books to the UK and US. Part of that was exposure of Libya's involvement in a furtive multi-nation effort to develop nuclear weapons. Another part which has gotten less publicity involves Libyan intelligence giving us everything they have about various terrorist groups in the Islamic world, and it is virtually certain some of that information has helped us in the shadow war against al Qaeda.

A more important consequence of the invasion of Iraq was that it has served as a "honey pot" for Islamic militants. Militants and resources which could have been applied elsewhere by al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups have instead gone to Iraq to attack our military, which is best prepared to defend itself and to destroy those who attack...What critics affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper. If we had not invaded Iraq, what would they have attacked instead? How would those resources have been applied? There's no way of knowing, of course; and it might well not have been Spain. But it seems likely at least some of it would have been directed against the west.

...the assumption is, "The goal of this war is to eliminate al Qaeda." That's wrong. That's part of what we're trying to do, but it is not the primary goal. The real goal is to eliminate the true source of the danger which faces us, the root cause, as it were. Al Qaeda arose out of that true source, but is not the actual source. Since al Qaeda represents an imminent threat, it must be dealt with. But if we only deal with al Qaeda, then something else will emerge to take its place and more of us will die in terrorist attacks...

...The real root cause is Arab failure, Arab shame at that failure, and Arab anger lashing out at us because our success makes their failure starkly clear...Human beings do not always take reversals of fortune gracefully. Still less can those who were once on top quietly accept seeing others leaving them far behind economically, intellectually, and militarily. Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the "infidels" of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise...

...There are only two ways we can eliminate the true danger we face: we can "destabilize" the entire region by inducing liberal reforms, in the traditional sense of the word "liberal" (i.e. liberation of individuals), or we can commit nuclear genocide. Obviously the latter is something we really do not want to do. It is truly a "last resort". And it would be nearly as much of a disaster for us as for them. But if we don't actively work to bring about liberalization of Arab society and liberation of Arabs as individuals, then it will eventually come to that. If we refuse to face the real root cause of this war and refuse to work on correcting it, then eventually we'll face the stark choice of either committing genocide or being victims of it. The problem won't go away simply because we ignore it or refuse to admit that it exists..

And that is why the invasion of Iraq was necessary. The invasion had very little to do with WMDs, even though that was the core of the public debate in the UN. The real reason we needed to invade Iraq was because we needed to take control of one core Arab nation so we could establish something like a western liberal government and society there, with equal rights for the women, with a truly free press, with the right of free speech and free assembly and free exercise of religion, and a government which served the people rather than trying to rule them. If we are even partially successful in doing that, it will seed those ideas into the entire region, and bring about reforms elsewhere more indirectly...

..And even with our active involvement, it will take a long time. Inducing this kind of broad reform is a process ultimately measured in decades or even centuries, not in months or days. In some cases it can require generational turnover...

...To expect that there be no enemy successes whatever is unreasonable. It either demonstrates ignorance of the reality of war, criminal naïveté, or a deliberate attempt to set the bar so high as to make it impossible to reach. The attack in Spain was an enemy operation which was very successful, both tactically and strategically. It was a strategic victory for our enemies because it caused one of our allies to change sides and to align against us. That's the kind of thing that happens in war. But that doesn't prove that our overall strategy is a failure, nor does it mean we're losing...

...Even granting that we might have been more successful in hunting down al Qaeda had we not invaded Iraq, adopting such a strategy would still have been wrong.