The Frankenstein Next Time

by publius

Iraq has been a daily political debate for several years now. It’s important though to step back at times and focus on the big picture. Although daily political fights are necessary, I would prefer to persuade those who disagree with me. Or at the very least, I want war supporters to better understand the basis of the deep well of criticism and animosity that people have towards our Iraq policy.

One reason for the anger is that this war, from the very beginning, has been based on mistaken premises. It’s one thing to have substantive disagreements about agreed-upon facts (e.g., whether tax redistribution rates are too high/low). It’s quite another to disagree about basic facts, and then base policy on that set of mistaken facts. But that’s what we have. (For now, I’m not talking about the wisdom of war -- a debate which involves subjective preferences. I’m talking about basic facts. Facts that can be checked, proven, and verified.)

This administration -- and many supporters -- have from the beginning used facts that are simply wrong. More than wrong -- demonstrably inaccurate. Maybe these people were honestly mistaken. Maybe they flat-out lied. (Some of both, I’d say). But regardless, the factual premises underlying the war -- and the occupation -- have proven mistaken time and time again. Many war supporters, however, simply ignore these inaccuracies. What’s more, these people continue to base their current arguments (including vitriolic nationalist ones like “defeatist”) on the basis of open and obvious factual inaccuracies. (To their credit though, many former supporters have not ignored it and have changed their views -- see, e.g., Andrew Sullivan).

Exhibit A is the speech McCain gave on the Senate today (linked to by Kathryn Jean Lopez under the title “Statesman McCain”). Putting aside subjective policy preferences, the speech is so full of obvious factual inaccuracies and misleading statements that it’s amazing that a credible candidate for President could deliver it.

On the jump, I’ll break down some of the more egregious factual errors and then explain the negative consequences.

First, the entire speech recasts the entire war as an America Civil War-style battle against one foe, al Qaeda. We’re wearing Blue, they’re wearing Grey. Here’s McCain:

[Zawahiri] called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda. General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place?

Where to start. First, “al Qaeda in Iraq” is not al Qaeda in the sense that the public understands that term. The group didn’t exist prior to the invasion. They had nothing to do with 9/11, or with any of the people who were. It’s a small group of foreign terrorists who have entered and started calling themselves that name. Second, there aren’t many of them – of the 19,000 detainees, about 135 are foreign. Ergo, the insurgents are generally home-grown Sunni Iraqis, not “al Qaeda.” (And newspapers have been reporting this fact for years). Finally, the actual Iraqis are making attempts to push back on these fighters, which undermines both (1) that the war is us vs. “al Qaeda”; and (2) that we would essentially be leaving al Qaeda in control of Iraq (which, of course, really isn’t the al Qaeda in the first place). More McCain:

Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The Soviets withdrew in 1988. Al Qaeda didn’t exist then. Of course, it is true that the Soviet Union indirectly gave rise to the Taliban and al Qaeda by (1) invading in the first place; (2) staying too long; (3) bombing indiscriminately; and (4) polarizing and radicalizing the population, leading them to support previously-fractured and warring fundamentalist militias. If the Soviet Union had stayed longer (a policy McCain apparently now supports), it would have gotten worse. More McCain:

If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over.

Again, this is just a factually inaccurate view of what’s going on. There isn’t a growing al Qaeda terrorist force (again, not even al Qaeda) threatening to take over territory like Hitler’s army. Note though McCain's use of "they". More:

The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda[.]

See above. I’ve grown a'weary.

So where does that leave us? According to John McCain -- respected Senator and presidential candidate -- the war is us vs. al Qaeda. (Bush presents it the same way. And others do too.) This is maddening, but it’s one part of the long history of factual inaccuracies that have provided the foundation of both the war and current war supporters’ arguments. These inaccuracies are what makes “us” so angry -- we feel we have been dealing for almost five years with arguments that are (at best) factually inaccurate or (at worst) consciously dishonest.

But putting accusations aside, there are real consequences in basing war policy on mistaken premises.

First, you simply can’t -- in a democracy -- have a meaningful debate or make an informed decision if you’re using the wrong facts. Same deal with our policymakers. It’s a sad day when we must hope Bush and McCain are lying because otherwise they are implementing war plans on the basis of gross factual errors (or fantasies).

Second, the transformation of the war into “us vs. al Qaeda” leads to the idea that either victory or defeat is possible in Iraq. Neither is possible. That’s because it’s not a Blue/Grey war in the sense that McCain is implying. It’s a million different wars with a million different actors fighting over a million different things. The “war” is in reality a complex Sunni-Shiite, Sunni-Sunni, Shiite-Shiite, Sunni-Kurd, Kurd-Turkmen, etc. battle that we have little control over. Camille Paglia (via Andrew Sullivan) makes the insightful observation that the very concepts of “victory” and “defeat” have become Frankenstein-esque creations of our own making that are choking us:

You speak of my party wanting to "choose defeat," while yours wants "victory." Is that stark opposition truly our only choice? Or has your party painted itself into a rhetorical corner with its polarized talk of victory and defeat? Isn't it possible that you have created a nightmare of words from which we cannot wake up?

Third, and related to the Frankenstein theme, is it possible that these fantasies could (to borrow from REM) come flaming a’ground? In other words, by dressing Iraq up as “us vs. al Qaeda,” do we unwittingly empower al Qaeda when we eventually do leave? Are we unwittingly persuading would-be radicals that al Qaeda is defeating the “Great Satan” in the Middle East when it’s doing nothing of the sort. If we weren’t using this language, gradual withdrawal wouldn’t be “defeat.” But if the President and credible presidential candidates define it in that way, well, then our “monster of words” could wake up and become real. McCain’s words could easily wind up on an al Qaeda (for real) website.

Finally, stressing the “defeat” theme also poisons the political environment, Weimar-style. A lot of people will in good faith read people like Glenn Reynolds and become enraged at the “stab in the back” liberals who stole defeat from the jaws of victory. So not only will our artificial dichotomies create monsters abroad, they could very well create monsters here at home, particularly if there’s another major terrorist attack.

All in all, it's a frustrating state of affairs, but one that unfortunately mirrors other debates such as global warming and habeas corpus ("it's for terrorists").

Comments

[hilzoy]

Good post. Minor comment, just before someone else gets to it: the last Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in Feb. 1989. However, they were out of the Pashtun areas by 1988. (See here.)

That said, al Qaeda's precursor organization, the Maktab al-Khidamat, had been up and running well before that.

Like I said, I just wanted to preempt anyone who wanted to make the 1989 point, and say: as far as the regions you're concerned about, you're right.

[Gary Farber]

"This administration -- and many supporters -- have from the beginning used facts that are simply wrong."

Er, then they weren't facts. This is an oxymoron.

[publius]

Fair point, but I still think the old afghan-ussr organization was different in kind. I remember this coming up in the context of the 9/11 comm report - i.e., whether "al qaeda" was actually around when bin laden went to sudan or whatever, and before the camps got going.

but i'll defer to others on that. even if i'm 100% wrong and the old precursor organization should count, the larger point still stands. feel free to excise that and judge the rest accordingly.

[publius]

Thanks Gary for the helpful tip

[byrningman]

Second, the transformation of the war into “us vs. al Qaeda” leads to the idea that either victory or defeat is possible in Iraq. Neither is possible. That’s because it’s not a Blue/Grey war in the sense that McCain is implying.

Strongly disagree with this idea, publius, I think defeat very much is possible. In fact, that's currently what is happening. That doesn't mean Washington DC is going to be invaded or anything.

Why is it that we say the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, but not call this a defeat for the USA?

This is a (self-inflicted) defeat, and because the government has, idiotically as you have pointed out, portrayed it as a battle against Al Qaeda, they will inherit many of the spoils of victory

[Gary Farber]

"Thanks Gary for the helpful tip"

I'm afraid I have great trouble shutting off my automatic copyeditor, and mentally circling stuff that should come out; some stuff just totally breaks focus on the substance, which is why it's bad; apologies if it's an unwanted note.

[Tom]

@ byrningman: I guess the meaning of defeat does depend on how one's goals are defined. It may be meaningless to engage at all in debate over the term "defeat" at this point.

So, abandoning the term "defeat" altogether and speaking in more concrete terms: U.S. troops leaving Iraq would not result in al Qaeda (or any group adopting that name) actually gaining control of territory; and it wouldn't make it any easier for al Qaeda to attack the U.S. itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "many of the spoils of victory"; I guess al Qaeda would gain some prestige, but U.S. rhetoric has been conferring unwarranted prestige on al Qaeda since 2001.

If you believe that "victory" over al Qaeda ultimately depends on winning "hearts and minds," i.e. trust, loyalty, and respect, then the U.S. needs to get out of Iraq in order to make that possible, since the continuing occupation of Iraq tends to make us look ineffectual.

[Hartmut]

I am cynical enough to believe that some strategists on the right know very well that there will be no "victory" but that this opens the possibility to shift the blame for "defeat" to the political opposition that is likely to take over in the next election (let's call it the 90 years jubilee of the original back-stab).
And at least in the long term it will probably even work [retch].

[Dan]

Two points.

1. Another very important point to make about clear definitions is Sun Tzu's famous phrase: "know thy enemy." If we really are not describing the enemy properly, we will not employ the right tools that take that enemy down. We see this so painfully and tragically clear in Iraq.

2. About the Soviet Union being "defeated" in Afghanistan. This is a very interesting point. My own personal belief (and I haven't studied the Soviets' actions and consequences in Afghanistan enough) is that this hurried the Soviet Union's decline and ultimately their downfall in the world. They spent so much energy, resources, and money in this failed venture that it really drained them.

Our nation is in a much stronger position vis a vis the Iraq war in comparison to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Our forces are an all-volunteer force, and the general cost to our society is quite minimal in comparison to the Soviets'.

However, the point is that the Soviets came out of Afghanistan in a significantly weaker position wherein the other nations of the world were able to exploit that weakness to ultimately bring the Soviet Union to its knees.

This is a dangerous position for us to be in. I think if someone like John McCain was honest with himself and really looked at the bigger picture, he'd see that Iraq is not as important as what would happen if the rest of the world decided right now to start taking advantage of our weakened state to further undermine our strengths.

General Michael Rose of Britain said the following recently:

It is hardly an overstatement to say that had Britain not ended the American War of Independence when it did, it could never have been in a position to defeat Napoleon.

Today, of course, the United States finds itself in much the same position as Britain in 1781. Distracted and diminished by an irrelevant, costly and probably unwinnable war in Iraq, America could ultimately find itself challenged by countries like China and India. Unless it can find a leader with the moral courage of Pitt, there is a strong probability that it will be forced to relinquish its position as the global superpower — possibly to a regime that does not have the same commitment to justice and liberty that the United States and Britain have worked so hard to extend across the world over the past two centuries.

The sound of the first shot fired at Lexington in 1775 echoed across the world. So too did the firing of the last shot six years later at Yorktown. That second echo brought salvation for Britain, and ultimately great benefit to the entire world.

There are times when a venture we are on comes to a critical point where it becomes self defeating and dangerous to our national security. We're way past the line in Iraq.

[OCSteve]

It’s a small group of foreign terrorists who have entered and started calling themselves that name. Second, there aren’t many of them – of the 19,000 detainees, about 135 are foreign.

Only 135? How many would be a concern?

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

Not al Qaeda?
Others contend that Saudi Arabia is allowing fighters sympathetic to Al Qaeda to go to Iraq so they won't create havoc at home.

Does it really matter if they are genuine AQ or wanna-be’s or just sympathetic?

Now, a group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq is the greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security, U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said Wednesday.

Am I "(at best) factually inaccurate or (at worst) consciously dishonest"?

[CharleyCarp]

I think the point, OCS, is that by killing those 4,000, neither AQI nor AQ is even the tiniest step closer to taking power in Iraq. It can kill people, and is going to continue to kill people, until the Iraqi government roots it out. In my view, our presence there is a substantial hindrance of that effort. Coupled with the ongoing civil war between larger factions who really are fighting for dominance of society, oil revenue, etc.

[OCSteve]

CC: I understand your point, even if I don’t entirely agree with it. My issue is with labeling some of these things “egregious factual errors” and labeling those who give them some credence as willing dupes or intentionally dishonest.

Constantly downplaying these threats really does not help burnish Democrat’s credentials on security.

[Catsy]

For the editors, sakthi's 4:32 AM post is very clever spam.

OCS, the problem is that the way the threat from AQI is portrayed by the war's supporters is consistently at odds with the level of threat they actually pose to Iraq, let alone to us. They refer to Iraq "falling" to AQI, or similar allusions to conquest, when no such thing is even remotely possible. There is no scenario short of the complete extinction of the Iraqi people wherein they would permit a foreign organization with a ideology inimical to theirs to control their country. And while many Iraqis do share with AQI a loathing for the American occupation, that's pretty much where the similarities end--subtract us, and any enemy-of-my-enemy tolerance the insurgency may have for AQI will evaporate in a heartbeat. I would not want to be a foreign terrorist in Iraq when the last American soldier leaves the country.

Similarly, the notion that withdrawing from Iraq would place the United States at greater risk of AQ attack is utter nonsense if you stop and think it through. First of all, AQI is a completely different organization from the AQ that attacked us. The reason why it is significant to point this out is because AQI is solely concerned with and capable of causing instability and death in Iraq. There is not one shred of intelligence that suggests they have any overseas infrastructure--if there were, you can be certain the Bush admin would trumpet it as loudly as possible as justification for their policies. They are a highly localized and largely fragmented group whose only real power is to cause noisy explosions in Iraq.

Finally, even if you were to grant the mistaken assumption that AQ and AQI are organizationally linked, it still does not justify this kind of fearmongering. AQ is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Having a presence in Iraq does not do anything to prevent the international elements of AQ from going forward with their own plans. The best that can be said is that it would force AQ to waste money and resources in Iraq that they could apply elsewhere--you know, kind of like we're doing in Iraq right now.

Those who raise the specter of this kind of conquest, or who try to scare us with vague threats of AQI following us home are, to put it simply, either ignorant of these facts or being willfully dishonest about them. At this point, vague and baseless fear-mongering is all they've got left.

We downplay these "threats", OCS, because they deserve to be downplayed. That's not weakness on national security, it's being capable of rationally assessing threat levels instead of setting the threat level to orange every time some bored Saudi college student decides to go to Iraq and call himself Al Qaeda. If anything, half the reason why the GOP and Iraq War supporters are losing /their/ credibility on national security is because they've cried wolf way far many times, and demonstrated that they don't really have a good grasp of what's a real threat to our security and what isn't.

[cleek]

yeah, what Catsy said

[G'Kar]

I believe it may be wise to note that al Qaeda is much more a central hub for a network of similarly minded individuals than a terrorist cell akin to Dr. Evil's secret lair. AQI, as Catsy notes, is more a franchise of the AQ moniker than an active extension of AQ. There are some linkages; because like are of similar minds, they do consult and AQ famously (apologies for the lack of linkage) send al Zarqawi a note chastising him for his killing of Sunni civilians because he was (and did) undermine AQI's cause in Iraq (thus the Anbar uprising). But Zarqawi was not bound to listen to that note, nor was AQ capable of withdrawing the AQ name from his organization.

This tends to illustrate the biggest problem the Coalition faces in Iraq. They are not facing 'an insurgency,' they are facing a combination of multiple insurgencies, criminals, and government infighting all going on at the same time. The Coalition focus on AQI is probably operationally wise, since AQI is seen as a foreign movement and therefore few Iraqis are fond of it, but even if/when the Coalition is able to push AQI out of Iraq, there will still be many other insurgencies that must be addressed or suppressed until such time as the GoI can gain sufficient legitimacy to hold power without Coalition support.

[Dan Miller]

OCSteve: What's so threatening? Even in hard-hit societies like Israel, you're more likely to die in a car wreck than in a terrorist attack. I'm not attempting to minimize the tragedy of terrorism, but in the scheme of things, it's a manageable risk of living in the modern world, not some kind of potential civilization-ender. Whatever OBL believes, Al Qaeda will not "bring their terrible rule to lands the world over".

The above statement does not apply, of course, to nuclear terrorism. But surely we can agree that the Iraq war is not keeping us safer from that risk in any way?

[Ugh]

Ah, Bizarro World living up to its name:

John McCain is the most ardent and eloquent defender of the mission of freedom, democracy, and security in Iraq - and not just in the Senate, but anywhere. John McCain was indeed the "Man Addressing the Boys" tonight in the Senate, as John Hinderacker put it.

[Steve]

Constantly downplaying these threats really does not help burnish Democrat’s credentials on security.

Are you equally concerned about the Republicans who overhype threats? I doubt you really believe that if we leave Iraq, "the terrorists will follow us home," but that's the line the GOP has been selling for quite some time.

It's one thing to say that if we leave Iraq, there may be more instability in Iraq, etc. It's quite another thing to try and scare people by claiming that if we leave Iraq, we're increasing the risk of another 9/11 at home. That's just silly. While there are probably many reasons why we haven't been attacked again since 9/11, one of them is not that we kept "the terrorists" busy in Iraq. Osama bin Laden has not been refraining from plotting more attacks on the US because he's busy plotting the next suicide bombing in Baghdad.

But I wonder if overhyping the terrorist threat is the sort of thing that leads one to be taken less seriously on national security. It seems to me that most people feel it does, since the Democrats have long since evened the gap on the national security issue in opinion polls. But I wonder if you feel the same way.

To me, one important role of a leader is to make you feel safe. I want someone like FDR, who will publicly proclaim "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" but privately, do all he can to ensure that the country stays safe. I think that's what most people want - leaders who worry so that they don't have to. But instead, we have a professional class of fearmongerers, people whose job security apparently depends on persuading voters that terrorists lurk around every corner, ready to set off dirty bombs at a moment's notice if you dare to elect a Democrat. Given that one of a terrorist's primary goals is, in fact, to spread terror, shouldn't we be a little more concerned about doing their job for them?

[liberal japonicus]

as John Hinderacker put it.

Sorry, a bit of a spelling flame, but that made me laugh.

[OCSteve]

Catsy: The reason why it is significant to point this out is because AQI is solely concerned with and capable of causing instability and death in Iraq.

I wasn’t actually referring to “them following us home” or posing a direct threat to the US (at least AQI). The suicide bombings in Iraq, the attempts to create or maintain a civil war, the killing of 4,000 Iraqis are all significant problems themselves. AQI poses a threat to our troops and their mission in Iraq and an even larger threat to the citizens of Iraq. I’m not worried about getting blown up when I go for pizza; I’m worried about the continued destabilization of Iraq.

The downplaying here is the meme that it’s only happening in Iraq, not here; its only 135 foreign terrorists (that number obviously doesn’t count the ones who successfully blew themselves up) – why isn’t this to be considered a serious threat?

On the larger point of fear mongering I agree with you (and publius, and other commenters) – but there has to be a way of making that point without completely minimizing the threat. Until a withdrawal actually happens, these terrorists and their ilk pose a threat to our troops every single day, if not through direct attacks then through the overall instability they create.

[Dantheman]

OCSteve,

"Until a withdrawal actually happens, these terrorists and their ilk pose a threat to our troops every single day, if not through direct attacks then through the overall instability they create."

True. Unfortunately, the presence of these terrorists is used as a reason for our troops to stay, when removing them would diminish the threat to our troops.

[Steve]

Until a withdrawal actually happens, these terrorists and their ilk pose a threat to our troops every single day, if not through direct attacks then through the overall instability they create.

Of course they do. I don't think anyone is arguing that our troops shouldn't attempt to capture or kill anyone who seeks to do them harm. But the question on the table is whether our troops should stay in Iraq at all, and it's not much of an argument to say that there are people who want to kill our troops, ergo the troops need to stay to fight those people. We could invade any country on earth and voila, there would be people trying to kill our troops.

There's no question that AQI poses a threat to the Iraqi people, which will continue even if we depart. But I don't see any evidence that AQI will ever be able to seize any territory in Iraq and establish a safe base of operations, or that they have the power to overthrow the existing government of Iraq. This isn't Vietnam where there will be thousands of enemy troops waiting to sack the capital if we leave. So the case for our military staying in order to protect the Iraqi people from terrorism is no stronger than the case for using our military to protect the people of any other nation from terrorism.

I wasn't really an opponent of the war from day one, but I truly couldn't understand how invading Iraq could be priority #1 in the war on terror. Similarly, I wonder how we ever got in the position of saying that our foremost goal as a nation - requiring the commitment of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of your tax money - is enforcing a particular division of power between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, or trying to protect the Iraqi people from domestic terrorists who have only the flimsiest of connections to the people that attacked us on 9/11. Withdrawing is a radical idea - albeit a radical idea with majority support - but we've gotten way off on a tangent in the fight against al-Qaeda, and only by divorcing ourselves from the toxic Iraq situation will we ever manage to refocus on the things that matter.

[publius]

ocsteve - i think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing. for instance, i agree that aqi is dangerous, and a threat. i'm not trying to downplay that at all. the question is what to do about it. my thinking is that our presence, in addition to creating them, "educates" them every day, gives them experience, expands their ranks, etc. but we could r-ably disagree about what to do.

as pointed out abvoe, my point was just that aqi is a relatively small group that is in no way THE TYPE of threat that Bush, et al are presenting it to be. it's not taking over iraq -- it's not going to control territory and march across the middle east. and i think everyonen knows that. yet bush/mccain keeps saying this b/c it stirs up 9/11 emotions that they have calculated are domestically helpful. in doing so, they create this larger "blue/grey" "victory/defeat" idea, and so on.

[MrWizard54]

This is a challenging post to respond to but I'm going to make my best attempt.

First let me attempt to clarify my understanding of AQ as an organization.

First of all, AQI is a completely different organization from the AQ that attacked us.

I don't think this is true at all. AQ is defined by an ideology not an organizational structure. Any person who subscribes to the ideology is a member. The ideology is a commitment to fighting against an eternal and apocalyptic siege against Islam.

They see the attack coming from liberalism mostly (Judaism is thrown in for old and historical reasons). The primary liberal idea that they reject is the separation of church and state. The idea that in order to create a functional community you must abandon laws from faith (Sharia or Messianic Law) and form a human code. To them this is an outright rejection of the supremacy of God in all things. To be honest is an argument that the west only finished 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia after 30 years of war in Europe.

In this light AQI is not just fighting for territory in Iraq (although they would very much enjoy controlling the country), they are fighting for their souls. Struggle is a method of purification and proof of your belief. Because it is an apocalyptic struggle that extends from the present to the end of days and final judgment no act in the defense of God is to great. Additionally because salvation and paradise is assured to those who fight on the side of Right in this battle no person who fights it has anything to loose. On the flip side any person who is not struggling with you is an enemy of God, deserving of no quarter. Only when you apply this level of devotion to the utmost does suicide bombing become possible.

When your realize this you can see that AQI is dangerous because they will inflict death wherever they go. If we leave Iraq they will continue to destroy people there. If they are rooted out of Iraq they will go elsewhere. They are battle hardened and pathological. Death is what they seek and they will find it somewhere.

Now finally to my point on organization. AQ is a leaderless organization. Never at any time does a member need permission to do anything. So long as they keep themselves within the ideological boundaries discussed above, you are a member.

That is not to say that there are not men of influence in AQ. People who through their credibility, experience and resources are able to give direction to others. But that is not so different then the way that protestant churches organize themselves in America.

All of this considered leaving Iraq is a defeat in some senses of the word. Ultimately they will claim victory, not because they destroyed us but because we failed to destroy them. They will hold the experience up and draw followers to them saying "Surely we must be the chosen ones. We survived the assault by the Russians in Afghanistan, and now the Americans in Iraq. The complete failure of America must not be far off."

Now this doesn't mean that I support staying in Iraq without end. I think AQ will claim the victory anyway. No amount of American Military might is going to drive them to death. It is like playing whack-a-mole, they simply show up elsewhere. But withdrawing from Iraq is most likely a good idea.

The military can be better used. Afghanistan could use more support. Although simply moving the troops to Afghanistan will most likely provoke the same fight we have now in Iraq in Afghanistan.

Ultimately it would be good because it would give us the opportunity to clear the air and start taking Islamists seriously. Sit them down and talk to them, challenge their idea and force them to compete with liberty on freedom with more than fear and a love of death.

It would take a major change in American policy. Mainly we would have to make our policy consistant with our ideals, but its not beyond us.

We can't destroy them but if we do it right we can take the wind from their sales.

[Eric Martin]

The best that can be said is that it would force AQ to waste money and resources in Iraq that they could apply elsewhere--you know, kind of like we're doing in Iraq right now.

Actually, Iraq has been a source of money for AQ in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Recent reports have indicated that money raised through illicit activities in Iraq (smuggling, extortion, theft, etc) has been flowing into AQ central and providing much needed resources.

[Eric Martin]

AQ is a leaderless organization. Never at any time does a member need permission to do anything. So long as they keep themselves within the ideological boundaries discussed above, you are a member.

I'm not so sure. Zawahiri and bin Laden tried to instruct Zarqawi at several turns. Not that Zarq was always a compliant vassal. But if Zarqawi had openly defied and challenged bin Laden and Zawahiri (or if they assessed his lack of discipline as too costly), and the latter two stripped him of his "authorization" it would be hard to make the case that Zarq was still al-Qaeda. Even if he claimed it.

Which brings me to this:

I don't think this is true at all. AQ is defined by an ideology not an organizational structure. Any person who subscribes to the ideology is a member. The ideology is a commitment to fighting against an eternal and apocalyptic siege against Islam.

I like Peter Bergen's explanation of al-Qaeda: think of it like the particle and wave descriptives for light. It is both a discrete organization, and an ideological movement.

As for the ideology itself, I think yours is a good description, but I would have sprinkled in a bit more Salafism.

[Dan Miller]

"When your realize this you can see that AQI is dangerous because they will inflict death wherever they go. If we leave Iraq they will continue to destroy people there. If they are rooted out of Iraq they will go elsewhere. They are battle hardened and pathological. Death is what they seek and they will find it somewhere."

I think, in all seriousness, that using the word "dangerous" gives them too much credit. I'm in basic agreement about their ideology, the need to withdraw from Iraq, etc.--but to use the word "dangerous" elevates AQ/AQI to a level of importance they don't deserve. Our society would be better off if we saw terrorism the same way we see violent crime or natural disasters or similar things--bad things, that you take precautions against, but nothing worth flipping out over. That's what's most disturbing to me--the attempt to elevate the low level of threat from conventional terrorism into some kind of uber-boogeyman that can justify things like the Iraq War.

[OCSteve]

my point was just that aqi is a relatively small group that is in no way THE TYPE of threat that Bush, et al are presenting it to be

We definitely agree on that. I’ll also agree with you that Iraq has become the largest “live fire” terrorist training camp that ever existed.

but we could r-ably disagree about what to do

Maybe not – as I just don’t have a clue. Staying is bad, leaving is bad.

[shotgunfreude]

Dan said:

"General Michael Rose of Britain said the following recently:

It is hardly an overstatement to say that had Britain not ended the American War of Independence when it did, it could never have been in a position to defeat Napoleon. ..."

I think this is one of the most underdiscussed and underappreciated aspects of the debate. No matter what else anyone believes about Iraq and our priorities there, the fact is that the ongoing occupation is militarily and financially unsustainable. The U.S. military is getting eroded down to ever-lower levels of readiness, for any function. If China invaded Taiwan next year, or North Korea invaded South Korea, or Canada invaded Vermont, we'd be a lot more hard-pressed to do anything about it than we should be.

As for finances, we are spending something like half a billion dollars a day, of money that we don't have and are borrowing, piling up more debts to China and Saudi Arabia and putting further downward pressure on the now long-dwindling U.S. dollar.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we erode our capability to deal with any actual threats to national security down the road. Maybe that is part of why the joint chiefs of staff unanimously opposed Bush's "surge" plan. Anyone in Congress or the administration who considers herself a "hawk" and an exponent of strong national security should be clamoring to get out of Iraq.

[Steve]

Here's a really excellent statement by Sen. Webb from last night's debate.

[rjoseph]

Sun Tzu:
If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

[Phil]

Not sure how useful this is, but I saw it linked elsewhere yesterday and found it an interesting read in light of this post. Excerpt:

When U.S. forces talk about al Qaeda, they talk about large training camps that move thousands of trainees through them. Those are not the people we talk about when we discuss al Qaeda. The people who go through the camps generally are relatively uneducated young men being trained as paramilitaries. They learn to shoot. They learn to devise simple explosives. They learn infantry tactics. They are called al Qaeda but they are more like Taliban fighters. They are not trained in the covert arts of moving to the United States, surviving without detection while being trained in flying airliners, and then carrying out complex missions effectively. They are al Qaeda in name and, inside Afghanistan or Pakistan, they might be able to do well in a firefight, but they are nothing like the men who struck on 9/11, nor are they trained to be. When the U.S. government speaks about thousands of al Qaeda fighters, the vision is that the camps are filled with these thousands of men with the skill level of the 9/11 attackers. It is a scary vision, which the administration has pushed since 9/11, but it isn't true. These guys are local troops for the endless wars of the region.

When we think of al Qaeda, we think of the tiny group of skilled operatives who gathered around Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef in the 1990s. That group was capable of planning attacks across continents, moving money and men around the world -- and doing so without being detected. Those people have been the target of U.S. intelligence. The goal has been to capture, kill or bottle up those men in inaccessible places in order to prevent another attack like 9/11 or worse . . .

If the NIE report is true, then the NIE is saying al Qaeda not only has been recruiting members into the core group, but also that it has been doing so for some time. If that is true then there have been excellent opportunities to penetrate and destroy what is left of it. But we don't think that is true, because al-Zawahiri and others, possibly bin Laden, are still on the loose. Therefore, we think the NIE is saying that the broad paramilitaries are active again and are now located in Pakistan.

Strange Week in Washington

Alternatively, the NIE is saying that a parallel covert group has been created in Pakistan, is using al Qaeda's name and is mounting new attacks. The attacks in the United Kingdom might have been part of its efforts, though they are an example of why we have always argued that terrorism is technically much more difficult to carry out than it might seem. Those attacks were botched from beginning to end. Unlike strikes by al Qaeda prime -- the core group -- these attacks, if they represent an effort by a new al Qaeda, should be a comfort. It was the gang that couldn't shoot straight operating globally. If Chertoff's gut is speaking about a secondary group in Pakistan carrying out attacks similar to those in the United Kingdom, then certainly there is cause for concern, but nothing like the concern that should be felt if al Qaeda prime is active again. But then we don't think it can be, unless it has recruited new members. And if it has been recruiting new members and U.S. intelligence hasn't slipped someone inside during the process, then that would be not only a shame but also the admission of a major intelligence fiasco. We don't think that is what the NIE is discussing. It is a warning that a group calling itself al Qaeda is operating in Pakistan. That can be called a revived al Qaeda, but only if one is careless with terminology

[mds]

So:

In other words, by dressing Iraq up as "us vs. al Qaeda," do we unwittingly empower al Qaeda when we eventually do leave?

That's why we can never, ever leave. This is a feature, not a bug.

A lot of people will in good faith read people like Glenn Reynolds and become enraged at the "stab in the back" liberals who stole defeat from the jaws of victory. So not only will our artificial dichotomies create monsters abroad, they could very well create monsters here at home, particularly if there's another major terrorist attack.

As Hartmut has noted, this is also a feature, not a bug.

[Gary Farber]

There's comment spam in sakthi's post of 4:32 a.m. about "car insurance comparison."

[Gary Farber]

Now, a group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq is the greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security, U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said Wednesday.

Am I "(at best) factually inaccurate or (at worst) consciously dishonest"?

No, but you might be being naive and gullible, if you don't consider the possibility that military spokespeople emphasize and say what they're told by their bosses, who are ultimately political.

If you like authority, mine outranks yours, though:

"No single narrative is sufficient to explain all the violence we see in Iraq today," Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.

Attempting to describe the enemy, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, listed "Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, former military, angry Sunni, Jihadists, foreign fighters and al-Qaeda," who create an "overlapping, complex and multi-polar Sunni insurgent and terrorist environment." He added that "Shia militias and Shia militants, some Kurdish pesh merga, and extensive criminal activity further contribute to violence, instability and insecurity."

[...]

Although the Bush administration continues to emphasize the role of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Maples described the current situation as "mostly an intra-Arab struggle to determine how power and authority will be distributed," with or without the U.S. presence. Al-Qaeda and foreign terrorist numbers were put at roughly 1,300, while Hayden, pressed by senators, estimated the number of insurgents in the "low tens of thousands." Maples estimated the number of Iraqi insurgents, including militias, at 20,000 to 30,000, and said there are many more who supply support.

[...]

"Sectarian violence now presents the greatest immediate threat to Iraq's stability and future," he [Hayden] said.

Woodward:

He compared the Iraq situation to the prolonged warfare in the Balkans. "In Bosnia, the parties fought themselves to exhaustion," Hayden said, suggesting that the same scenario could play out in Iraq. "They might just have to fight this out to exhaustion."

Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

Call? Raise? :-)

Seriously, I don't know how familiar you are with the Vietnam War, but does the turn "Saigon Follies" mean anything to you? Given the record of U.S. military spokespeople in U.S. wars counter-insurgency wars, what reason would there be to find them particularly credible? Do you expect them to be simply honestly reporting bad news when it occurs? Are they objective, reliable reporters, given the record? Was that the case in Vietnam? Has the Rumsfeld DoD shown that it's bravely different in boldly speaking truth despite pressure from above? What do you, think, OCSteve?

Bonus quote!

[...] But the government itself was responsible for some of that violence, the CIA official said. "The Ministry of Interior is uniformed death squads, overseers of jails and torture facilities," he said. "Their funds are constantly misappropriated."

In his testimony, Hayden said that the United States had fundamental disagreements with Maliki's Shiite-dominated government on some of the most basic issues facing Iraq.

"We and the Iraqi government do not agree on who the enemy is," Hayden said, according to the written record. "For all the senior leaders of the Iraqi government, Baathists are the source of evil. There is a Baathist behind every bush."

Several participants in the interview described Hayden as dismayed by the startling level of violence in the country but skeptical of the ability of Iraqi forces -- either the military or the police -- to do anything about it.

"It's a legitimate question whether strengthening the Iraqi security forces helps or hurts when they are viewed as a predatory element," he said. "Strengthening Iraqi security forces is not unalloyed good. Without qualification, this judgment applies to the police."

This is, indicentally, why stats about how many Iraqi units are trained are beyond irrelevant: if you're training soldiers/police when there's no coherent government, but instead there's a deadlocked government split in sectarian warfare, all you're doing is making for a bigger and better civil war. There could be one billion trained Iraqi divisions standing on their own, and this would not help. Because they'd be killing each other.

[Gary Farber]

Please see comment I posted in the wrong thread here, with 1973 nostalgia, if you'll be so kind as to click.

[Gary Farber]

Also:

[...] Some terrorism analysts say Bush has used inflated rhetoric to depict al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the same group of extremists that attacked the United States on Sept. 11 -- noting that the group did not exist until after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. These analysts say Bush also has overlooked the contribution that U.S. actions have made to the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has been described as kind of a franchise of the main al-Qaeda network headed by bin Laden.

Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA analyst who has been involved in previous intelligence estimates, said that the administration has correctly identified the danger posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq and that there are indeed links between the Iraq group and the larger international terrorist network. But he said the White House is drawing the wrong conclusion, and argued instead that it is the U.S. presence in Iraq that is fueling the terrorists' cause.

"Iraq matters because it has become a cause celebre and because groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda central exploit the image of the United States being out to occupy Muslim lands," Pillar said.

Referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Clinton administration official Daniel S. Benjamin, who has written books and articles on international terrorism, said: "These are bad guys. These are jihadists." He added: "That doesn't mean we [should] stay in Iraq the way we have been, because we are not making the situation any better. We're creating terrorists in Iraq, we are creating terrorists outside of Iraq who are inspired by what's going on in Iraq. . . . The longer we stay, the more terrorists we create."

[Tillman Fan]

The "deep well of criticism and animosity" that I feel toward our Iraq policy is based only partly on the policy itself. Rather, my anger is founded in the literally innumerable accusations by supporters of the war that anyone who questioned the wisdom of going to war, or disputed whether the occupation was succeeding, was (take your pick) a "traitor," a "supporter of Saddam Hussein," or otherwise a person who was not to be taken seriously.

Regarding the "stabbed in the back" theme that is taking shape, I wonder if anyone has considered that the media in the Soviet Union had no role in undermining the success of the Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

[frolix22]

Very interesting stuff. The media really have to take a lot of blame for this as they persistently refuse to call dishonest politicians on obvious factual inaccuracies.

[Catsy]

I don't think this is true at all. AQ is defined by an ideology not an organizational structure.

This is a mostly true statement, but ideology alone isn't a useful metric for evaluating the threat that AQI poses to the security of the United States of America vis a vis AQ proper. They certainly share an ideology, but you have to consider whether or not they have the /means/ to accomplish those goals. Some random Palestinian on a street corner in Gaza chanting "death to America" clearly wishes great harm upon us, but even if he we inclined to take up arms himself he has no meaningful ability to inflict that harm on us as a nation, except by killing random Americans who happen to be in Israel. Likewise, the only ability AQI has to harm our national security is by killing our troops and destroying our equipment--an ability we are giving them by staying in Iraq.

Apologies, but I've skipped the bulk of your descriptions of jihad and AQ's ideology because while insightful and mostly correct, it has no real bearing on the core point I was discussing: whether or not they're a threat to us.

When your realize this you can see that AQI is dangerous because they will inflict death wherever they go.

True, but it also has no bearing on their threat to the United States. While they will, as you put it, "inflict death wherever they go", they have to get out of Iraq, gain passage to the United States, get into the country somehow, and whilst amassing destructive materials maintain enough operational security to not get caught before they carry out whatever plans they have. And if they managed somehow, in some flight of fantasy, to successfully carry out another 9/11-style operation, they will still have accomplished nothing of substance. They will have killed some people and caused a temporary disruption to business, but will still have no more ability to conquer or meaningfully harm the United States than I do. Considerably less, actually, since I'm a natural-born citizen who can move about freely and vote.

So yes, they're dangerous. The important question is: to whom?

If we leave Iraq they will continue to destroy people there. If they are rooted out of Iraq they will go elsewhere.

No, if we leave Iraq they will be dead within weeks. They will not be rooted out of Iraq, they will be exterminated by a population no longer restrained or motivated by the American military occupation.

Now finally to my point on organization. AQ is a leaderless organization. Never at any time does a member need permission to do anything. So long as they keep themselves within the ideological boundaries discussed above, you are a member.

We seem intent on proving the truth of bin Laden's assertion that all someone has to do is raise the banner of al Qaeda in some remote corner of the world to bring the US military running.

Now this doesn't mean that I support staying in Iraq without end. I think AQ will claim the victory anyway. No amount of American Military might is going to drive them to death. It is like playing whack-a-mole, they simply show up elsewhere. But withdrawing from Iraq is most likely a good idea.

On these points we agree wholly. :)

[MrWizard54]

I'm not so sure. Zawahiri and bin Laden tried to instruct Zarqawi at several turns. Not that Zarq was always a compliant vassal. But if Zarqawi had openly defied and challenged bin Laden and Zawahiri (or if they assessed his lack of discipline as too costly), and the latter two stripped him of his "authorization" it would be hard to make the case that Zarq was still al-Qaeda. Even if he claimed it.

This actually falls to my point about leaderless organizations having people of great influence (Bin Laden, Zawahiri). They have the influence to influence other people in the organization, stop supplying him with funding or advice. At that point the situation becomes almost a textbook case of natural selection. Zarqawi could change and stay in the fold or loose the power and influence associated with Bin Laden's support. Either way he was going to continue with the same fight, it is more a question of resource allocation then membership (if you follow my line of thought on AQ as an ideology more than an organization).

On a side note I highly recommend the book "The Starfish and the Spider" if you want to understand how AQ is organized.

***
but to use the word "dangerous" elevates AQ/AQI to a level of importance they don't deserve.

I really don't see what is not dangerous about a pathological mass movement, bent on death and suicide.

They are intent on cleansing the world back to the purity of Islam at Mecca and Medina. And they will use the same methods that Hitler used to cleanse the world to a pure master race, and Stalin used to break the USSR of "capitalist ideas". The only way to do it is kill everyone who doesn't voluntarily subscribe.

Unless the argument is that they don't have the capacity to do serious damage. In which case I think your argument is unfounded based on the following:

9/11
American Embassy Bombings
USS Cole
Spanish Train bombing
London transit bombings
Uncounted violence in Iraq and Afghanistan

Treating this as a law enforcement problem belittles the weight of the ideological argument at stake. These aren't rational people professing rational arguments for conflict. AQ and company are out to bring salvation by the sword. If you don't believe me, think of a rational reason to kill your self. Not just die in the defense of something good. But to kill yourself because it was a good thing for all the world.

[Steve]

Unless the argument is that they don't have the capacity to do serious damage. In which case I think your argument is unfounded based on the following:

You didn't just compare the German military to a bunch of guys with boxcutters, did you?

Of course terrorists have the capability to cause death and destruction. But they won't be conquering territory or establishing a caliphate. It's just silly to think they have a chance of accomplishing any of these things in the long view.

[Eric Martin]

Zarqawi could change and stay in the fold or loose the power and influence associated with Bin Laden's support. Either way he was going to continue with the same fight, it is more a question of resource allocation then membership (if you follow my line of thought on AQ as an ideology more than an organization).

Yes, but it is both. An ideology and an organization. Zarq still would have been a menace, but he wouldn't have been al-Qaeda. Resource allocation matters. Branding matters. Having Zawahiri/bin Laden's blessing matters in terms of prestige which is an advantage in many areas in addition to those listed.

[Jeff]

Given the record of U.S. military spokespeople in U.S. wars counter-insurgency wars, what reason would there be to find them particularly credible?

And to go back to the lies or mistakes that this post began with, given the record of Adminstration spokespeople, in and out of uniform, what reason would there be to find them particularly credible?

[john miller]

MrWizard: "The primary liberal idea that they reject is the separation of church and state. The idea that in order to create a functional community you must abandon laws from faith (Sharia or Messianic Law) and form a human code. To them this is an outright rejection of the supremacy of God in all things."

This idea is rejected by a lot of Islam, most of whom have no interest in or desire to commit the mayhem you refer to.

Again MrWizard: "They are intent on cleansing the world back to the purity of Islam at Mecca and Medina."

I am getting really tired of people talking about the intent of AQ and other radical Islamic groups as justification for our actions. Intent only means something if there is also capability. AQ doesn't have that capability, and would have even less of a chance if we approached the situation correctly. AS pointed out repeatedly above (with no one really contradicting it) if we left AQI would disappear in a very short time, and few members would get out of Iraq with their lives intact.

MrWizard: "Treating this as a law enforcement problem belittles the weight of the ideological argument at stake. These aren't rational people professing rational arguments for conflict."

No belittling at all. However, it is interesting that almost all arrests and spoiling of plans have been done through law enforcement, not military action. Rationality is irrelevant, as many criminals and criminal organizations don't profess rational arguments, at least as perceived by the rest of the world. And remember, for AQ, their arguments are totally rational.

[slightly_peeved]

"The primary liberal idea that they reject is the separation of church and state. The idea that in order to create a functional community you must abandon laws from faith (Sharia or Messianic Law) and form a human code. To them this is an outright rejection of the supremacy of God in all things."

You thought they'd be friendly with America then, considering how many Americans (including Bush) agree with these sentiments. Surely they'd be attacking Scandinavia, or something.

[Catsy]

As noted repeatedly, it's utterly counter factual to deride treating terrorism as a "law enforcement" issue, when that very approach--along with alert citizens and incompetent terrorists--have provided practically every single crisis-averted success story of the last six years.

If good law enforcement is so terrible at preventing international terrorism that we have to rely on military action, why has the former been so consistently effective, and the latter so overwhelmingly less so?

[MrWizard54]

This is what I get for posting my second response in a hurry.

I by no means mean to belittle the work of law enforcement everywhere in preventing further terrorist attacks. When I said that treating the problem with AQ as a law enforcement problem is inappropriate what I should have said is "treating it only as a law enforcement problem is inappropriate."

Law enforcement is something that can be done within the bounds of lawful society. Therefore it has great capacity to stop terrorism from happening in the modern Western World.

If we want to defeat terrorism we will need a much more serious ideological engagement with AQ. As silly as their ideas seem to us they more people buy into the idea all the time.

But they won't be conquering territory or establishing a caliphate. It's just silly to think they have a chance of accomplishing any of these things in the long view.

When you think of it, capturing territory isn't that insane. Pakistan is uncomfortably close to major problems with Islamists. There are significant areas on the border that are essentially under their control. I know Hezbollah is not AQ but they control Gaza.

You didn't just compare the German military to a bunch of guys with boxcutters, did you?

No I did not intend to compare the German military to AQ but I will gladly compare this:

HARRIS WHITBECK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wednesday afternoon at Kabul's national stadium, a soccer match between the top two local teams well under way, and drawing quite a crowd. The crowd and the players seem pleased to be here and pleased to be at a game they know won't be interrupted for the administration of Taliban justice.

"No, no, I couldn't bear to watch it," says Saidul Jum (ph), a football player who on at least three occasions had to stand by as Taliban police led convicted thieves to the field, then surgically amputated their hands or feet.

(on camera): A routine, friendly football match like this one, interrupted and turned into one of the grisliest expressions of the Taliban's interpretation of Islam.

(voice-over): Stadium officials say dozens were executed and hundreds more punished on the soccer field by the Taliban. Doing it in public was a way of warning the population of the price of breaking the law.

So was leaving the evidence in sight.

Football coach Zaid Mahsiam Masari showed me the exact spot where the punishments took place -- center field, where everyone could see.

"One morning I came out here, and there was a big barrel on the field," he says. "It was filled with amputated hands and feet. The teenage players out for morning practice were so upset they could not continue playing."

How, then, to erase the grisly memories from a place built for sportsmanship? "We have to get support for a sports program," he says, "have resources to train our players and to send our young people abroad to see how other sportsmen in the world play, because for five years," he says, "my players were in darkness." The new sports authorities have begun by erasing the official name of the Taliban regime from the stadium wall. Erasing the memory of what happened inside will likely take much longer.

To Auschwitz.

So I'm proposing that fighting AQ is a serious threat. The idea is the same idea with different rhetoric that animated German National Socialism and Communism. Everyone said in the beginning that those people couldn't possibly be dangerous. Lets not make the same mistake.

I don't honestly know what would happen to AQI if we left. I will agree that most of them will probably get killed off or just go away. But the smart ones escape and they will cause trouble somewhere, and I wouldn't put it past them to do it here. They do have connections to the larger AQ group which means they have at their disposal plenty of money to fund what they want.

Terrorist operations are difficult and treacherous but this is a smart and patient enemy. I wouldn't put anything past them.

So if we want to defeat them it will have to be a combination of police work at home, honest and consistent policy of promoting liberty abroad*, and the willingness to use military force on occasion to dispose of people when they can be found. Lastly and most importantly we need to have serious, scholarly and frank debates with the scholars of Islamism and see how they hold up because this battle will be won on the plain of ideals.

For caviates to that statement. When I say promoting liberty abroad I don't mean broad casting audio into Iran, I mean consistently supporting actual democratic leaning people even when it means biting the bullet and disagreeing with a national interest (oil for instance).

On the topic of military action. I don't think that the way that we have done things in the past several years has been good (although I think that if the methods being put into play now were used 4 years ago we would be in much better shape than we are now). I think we need to sit back and get our military back together. But we need to be willing to go out and get the bad guys when we can.