Feeding the Terrorist Machine

A new post by Tom Bowler at Libertarian Leanings points to the apparent "early success" of the new "surge" security plan in Iraq, and also recites a meme that has become very common among supporters of the war. Bowler first quotes a NY Post article, written by retired army officer Gordon Cucullu, which speaks of what seems to be newfound hope in Iraq. According to Cucullu, the recent decline in violence has been accompanied by a notable increase in faith in the Iraqi government, with more Iraqis joining police and army forces while dropping support for militias and insurgent groups.

While this is certainly good news, only time will tell if these developments can stand in the face of evolving insurgent tactics. After only 5 weeks of the new security plan, it is hard to tell if a new, stable atmosphere is emerging or if insurgents are merely transitioning and reacting to the new American tactics. Whatever the case, temporary gains -- in stability, in government legitimacy, in popular sentiment -- will only be truly valuable if they can be both expanded throughout the nation and sustained in the long term; these gains must survive the inevitable insurgent reactions and offensives not just in Baghdad, but throughout Iraq.

Moving on to the common meme among war supporters, Bowler says,

"It seems to be lost on the Democratic majority in congress that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We are in a war on terror, and our soldiers are fighting our terrorist enemies every day. Al Qaeda is the group responsible for bringing down the twin towers in lower Manhattan. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus our soldiers are fighting al Qaeda and they're fighting them in Iraq."

While what he says is certainly true (we are fighting elements of al Qaeda and similar organizations in Iraq), and there are without question certain benefits to fighting them "there" and not "here," Bowler fails to recognize (as many war-supporters do) that there are definite, serious negative consequences to this situation as well.

Students of the origins of al Qaeda will recall that the organization first emerged from the ashes of the failed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That is to say, the interpersonal connections, honing of skills and exchange of expertise necessary to effectively form a transnational terrorist organization were forged in the conflict with the USSR. This process drew individuals, skills, financial assets, and ideologies together in a way that made possible the formation of the unique beast that is al Qaeda.

In the same sense, the conflict in Iraq draws jihadis, along with their skills and assets, together in a way not possible outside the context of a massive asymmetric (guerrilla, insurgent) conflict. Thus we see that, although it is good that many of those willing to kill and die in the name of extremist ideologies are being "dealt with" by U.S. forces in Iraq, the conflict itself provides the context for extensive development and proliferation of jihadi ideology and guerrilla skills -- a development that has repercussions far beyond the borders of Iraq. This process has been seen in action throughout the world: the evolution of improvised explosive devices in Iraq from simple, primitive devices to advanced and more effective ones; the spread of violent extremist Islam into Western cultures, which has centered around the war in Iraq; sophisticated international networking between extremist "cells" based on ties going back to the conflict in Iraq.

Given all this, the pertinent question is whether the war in Iraq is making more terrorists than coalition forces can kill, and the answer seems to be yes. The spread of terrorist violence throughout the world since the invasion of Iraq -- in Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere -- as well as the seemingly endless supply of willing suicide bombers and insurgents, suggests that (as General Petraeus has said) there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. If this is so, and only political reconciliation can pave the way for peace in the war-torn country, the same is true for the wider issue of how global terrorism is fed by the conflict in Iraq.

As long as Iraq remains a weak, divided nation and an exceptional training ground for terrorists, there will always be more terrorists. While many supporters of the war imagine Iraq becoming a terrorist haven if America were to pull out, in reality the continuing conflict may be even more effective in forging a strong terrorist movement, precisely because it is not safe, and because it provides a proving and development ground for terrorists and their tactics.

The war in Iraq, despite the opportunity it provides for eliminating some terrorists, remains an open sore which will fester and breed further global infection as long as violence prevails. Contrary to those who tout the importance of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," the truth is that the violence overseas spreads into our backyards precisely because it is birthed and strengthened by America's presence in Iraq.