Peter Bergen wrote an article appearing in today's New York Times (10/26/06) suggesting that America needs to stay in Iraq because a pull out would hand a victory to Al-Qaeda and would lead to a Al-Qaeda foothold in the Sunni heartland a la 1980's - 1990's Afghanistan. Peter Bergen is wrong.
According to Bergen, Al-Qaeda's overarching goal is to take over a state, or part of a state, and the Sunni heartland in Iraq would be an ideal location for such a venture. He cites the relationship between Zarqawi and the Al-Qaeda leadership as support for his statements. Mr. Bergen is overlooking a critical point that calls his whole opinion into question. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is based largely on tribal ties and affiliation with the Baath Party rather than on religion or ties with Al-Qaeda. There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda or any of its compatriots in Iraq are the prime force behind the insurgency.
Moreover, the world view of former Baath Party members is totally in conflict with the Al-Qaeda world view. While the former Baath Party insurgents may tolerate foreign Al-Qaeda fighters whose goals coincide with theirs at the moment, there is little logical support for the idea that the Sunni Iraqis will fall into line with Al-Qaeda and adopt Sharia law and fundamentalist dress codes for women. After years of secular rule, it is doubtful that the Sunnis would tolerate such a system. The Sunnis are fiercely independent and have a distinct distaste for foreign rule. It is extremely unlikely that they will suddenly bow down to a fundamentalist ruler from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.
Bergen trembles at the thought that Iraq would become a launching pad for future Western attacks. He seems to forget that we are the most powerful nation on this planet. While the US may have difficulty occupying a foreign land (just as any superpower would), there is little threat from a jihadist mini-state in Iraq. In fact, it would be much easier to monitor and defeat Al-Qaeda if they came out of the shadows. And I seriously doubt they could effectually maintain a presence in Iraq after an American pullout in the midst of a secular Sunni population and hostile Shiites and Kurds. Even if they could take over parts of the Sunni heartland for a period, it would be enjoyable watching them attempt to govern the Iraqis.
The best thing that the US can do at this point is pullout. At this moment, our troops are sitting ducks-they can patrol the country and root out some insurgents, but a hostile population can hide these insurgents making attacks against our troops largely effortless. There will be no large scale attacks, but the hit and run tactics are unstoppable absent a Nazi Germany type occupation (such as the occupation of Greece or Poland during WWII-kill 10 (or 100) civilians for every American killed). Obviously, brutal occupation tactics such as the Nazis used are unthinkable and would still only pacify the country for a limited period.
Al-Qaeda probably wishes nothing more than the US to stay in Iraq. This situation provides them with easy American targets on whom their recruits can practice killing. It also gives them a chance to build comradery with the Iraqi Sunnis. While the two groups may not have common bonds at this point, a ten year occupation will help build those ties. Do you think that Al-Qaeda would have been allowed to operate freely in Afghanistan if the foreign Al-Qaeda fighters had not fought alongside the Afghans against the Soviets and the Afghans internal enemies? The longer the war drags on the more likely it is that such ties could develop in the future. I am sure that Al-Qaeda desires a victory over the US, but a pullout now would not amount to such a victory. If anyone could claim victory, it would be the Iraqi insurgents not Al-Qaeda. Even if Al-Qaeda claimed that it was responsible for the "victory," no one would believe it-Arabs or anyone else.
Bergen thinks that withdrawing troops to bases in central and western Iraq and having our Special Forces hunt down Al-Qaeda fighters is the appropriate tactics at this point. While I agree with Bergen that such a pull back would tamp down the insurgency, it would not be a viable course of action. The Iraqis (Sunni and Shiite especially) have been skeptical that the US plans to permanently base themselves in their country. Bergen's proposed bases would fulfill those expectations and would cause further tension and distrust between Iraqis and the Americans. Haven't we caused enough problems? Our presence causes violence. Like any people, the Iraqis do not appreciate foreign occupation. We have to ask ourselves what would we do if we were Iraqis occupied by a foreign power that insists that it occupies your country for your own good?
The concept that we should stay in Iraq in order avoid the appearance of defeat at the hands of Al-Qaeda is ludicrous. It would be a sign of our weakness if that was our main concern. We are not "winning" in Iraq because we are fighting an unwinnable war. Taking out Saddam was a military objective that was achievable, but occupying Iraq is not. As long as we are there, there will be Iraqis who will fight us to the death. If history has taught us anything, it is that people resist occupation. Unfortunately, the Iraqis must figure out a way to live together or live apart-we cannot do it for them.