Al Qaeda in Iraq: I Think We Have a Problem

After watching Obama's exchange with McCain the last couple of days over Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the one between John Stoltz of Vote Vets and Ericka Anderson of HumanEvents.com (excerpts of which are at the top of the rec list right now), I'm not sure "our side" is doing as well as we think we are. I think we could do better on this question, and here's why:

If I may summarize the nature of both of these exchanges thusly:

Us: We need to get out of Iraq so we can take the fight to our real enemy, those who attacked us on 9/11, Al Qaeda, and they are in Afghanistan.

Them: What about Al Qaeda in Iraq? If we don't finish the job in Iraq, it will become a base for them.

Us: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until you idiots launched this ill-advised war. Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq, he's in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Now, as a rhetorical exchange I think we do win in the short term, because it highlights the most glaring national security misstep of the Bush Administration -- by getting us involved in Iraq, they went AWOL on the fight against the actual people who were responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. The fact that Osama bin Laden is still out there wagging his finger at us is just unbelievable to me and to a lot of other Americans, I imagine. And for that I cheered along with the rest of you.

But as I thought about it a bit longer, I'm not sure we do win this argument as it's presently constituted. While it's absolutely true that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the invasion, and that our invasion in fact facilitated their growth in that country, it is also undeniable that they are in there now. It happens that, from what I understand, they are not particularly strong there right now, but that wasn't the case a couple of years ago and it doesn't have to be the case a couple of years from now.

I'm not sure that the American people are going to buy that you can effectively respond to a question about what are we going to do about a potential threat to our security by rhetorically hitting the Republicans over the head with how the problem itself would not be in existence, were it not for their previous mistakes. While our point may be valid, it does not solve the problem at hand.

I think our answer starts down the path of the correct response, but it doesn't quite get there. I'm not sure how you reduce it to a 10-second sound bite, but we have to point out that not only was Al Qaeda not in Iraq before we got there, but that it is our very presence there that created the fertile ground in which they were able to take hold. Once we leave, the Iraqi people will have no reason to give comfort and shelter to those who would use their country as a base from which to attack America.

Now, this still does not completely address the issue, because we can't be sure that this is in fact the case. It may be that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq only because Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow it. But I think it's better to at least have a rationale as to why our approach is more likely to result in less terrorism than theirs.

I'm sure there are those out there who can make that point in a much more succinct and clear fashion. And don't get me wrong, I still think we definitely win this argument. I just think that we have to address the question of what will happen going forward, not just what got us here.

UPDATE: Reading through some of the comments, the issue is not whether or not we should pull out of Iraq. I think we all believe that we should. My issue has more to do with the rhetoric that we are using to buttress our position. My point, and it seems to be confirmed in many of the comments, is that we must say that Al Qaeda is only in Iraq as a result of our presence there, and that they will not be there after we leave. I haven't seen the second part of that sentence emphasized, and without that, the first part is insufficient.

•  Tips for Peace on Earth

  by pragprogress on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:43:17 AM PDT

  •  When we leave Iraq...

    the Iraqis will destroy them.  They hate them as much as we do.  

    by kharma on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:50:04 AM PDT

    •  Hell, we could PAY them to destroy them

      thats what normally happens.

      Taliban never ran all of Afghan either, where does one think the term N.Alliance comes from?

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM PDT

•  You forget in your poll the following option:

  Al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan apart from its name. Hence, we should make that clear and expose McCain for mixing these two up.

  by marcoto on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:47:17 AM PDT

  •  Libyan/Egyptian accents are as distinct as

    Alabama is to Alleghany...it won't be hard for THEM to ethnic cleanse the instigators.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:41 AM PDT

  •  Is that name...

    ...one they chose for themselves, or did our government brand them as such?

    by Sarge in Seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM PDT

•  AQ in Iraq

  will be toast the minute we leave.

  by word player on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:47:28 AM PDT

  •  burnt

    toast.

    by elmo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:48:30 AM PDT

•  You're right...

  Unfortunately, if the US leaves Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia and Turkey will go at it like a vulture on road kill.

  Iraq needs a functioning government and a real army before we leave.

  However, I believe both those things could have been achieved....but the Neo-cons had no vested interest in seeing it happen.

  by CanAm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:48:25 AM PDT

  •  Iraq had those things before we invaded

    and your prediction as to what will happen after we leave not credible.

    Yes, there will be violence after our withdrawal, but there is violence now, and our remaining just prevents there from ever being a conclusive outcome.

    by elmo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:28 AM PDT

    •  That's awful naive...

      Turkey has already invaded Northern Iraq...Iran would like nothing more than to take a big piece of the country as well.

      Bush got us into a HUGE geo-political mess and to think we can just leave is foolish.

      I still think Obama can find the solution better than McCain, but he's not going to be able to simply pull out.

      by CanAm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:55:31 AM PDT

      •  Iran has no need to invade

        the majority of Iraqis are Shia and friendly to Iran.

        Turkey has not invaded, although there is cross border fighting.

        Your comment sounds like you think the only solution to everything is to invade! That's just silly, but that attitude certainly got us into the mess we're in now.

        by elmo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:35 AM PDT

        •  Turkey did invade actually

          but only temporarily.

          by pragprogress on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM PDT

•  Obama's main advisor created Al-Qaeda

  His name is Zabignew Brazinski
  He created Al-Qaeda to fight the russians in the 80's

  by I AM TRUTH on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:48:34 AM PDT

  •  Make a movie, compete with Charlie Wilson's War

    for box office, your screenplay is unique.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:55:10 AM PDT

    •  Not that unique

      Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998:

         Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

      ...

         Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

         B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

      Arguably, he has a point that the fall of the Soviet Union was a more momentous world event than the civil war that took place in Afghanistan for 20 years, and even compared to the subsequent US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's a big deal, but an awful lot of people died because of Brzezinski's little scheme. And nearly 30 years later, they're still dying from the aftershocks.

      by darrelplant on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:32:51 AM PDT

      •  Not a straight or even direct line of descent

        AQ did not evolve from the Taliban any more than people evolved from gibbons. These are separate lines.

        The mujahadeen did not directly become the Taliban, and the Taliban sure as hell did not become AQ.

        The Taliban came out of Pakistan's and Afghanistan's madrassas while OBL was living in Africa haggling over theology with the Egyptian wing of what became AQ.

        by bernardpliers on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:49:45 AM PDT

        •  Taliban

          Nobody said Al Qaeda descended from the Taliban. Brzezinski made a reference to the Taliban in a dismissive manner and didn't mention Al Qaeda at all, perhaps because the interview was from 1998, before most people had begun paying attention to Al Qaeda.

          Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri were both in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980s, while the Soviets occupied Afghanistan.  The Taliban didn't come to power in Afghanistan until years after the Soviets had left.

          Your grasp of the historical timeline is a bit shaky.

          by darrelplant on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM PDT

  •  AQ Started in Africa In the Early 90's

    They wandered back to Afghanistan in '96 and gained protection from a local Taliban commander soon after the Taliban went national. The Taliban tolerated OBL because they did not know he was flat broke and thought he had money. OBL started funneling in Saudi money to the Taliban.

    by bernardpliers on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

    •  Origins

      The people who started what became known as Al Qaeda all came out of the CIA-backed Afghan opposition to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. That's where they got their start.

      by darrelplant on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:37:04 AM PDT

      •  Nope

        There were a couple of groups, and it was mainly Egyptian at first because AQ was really born in Africa after the Russian-Afghan war.  

        "The Looming Tower" explains this all in great detail about the infighting and defections within AQ, but I don't have my copy handy. It's great for keeping all the bad guys straight.

        I've spent a lot of time bickering with wingnuts about how "it's all Clintons fault," so I read up on this pretty well.

        by bernardpliers on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:44:14 AM PDT

        •  Clinton?

          Clinton wasn't in power in the '70s or '80s.

          Deny it all you want to, split hairs all you want, but the people who founded Al Qaeda cut their teeth in Afghanistan during the Mujihideen's fight with the Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden was certainly there. So was Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda wasn't formed until after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, but the people who formed it didn't spring into existence out of thin air.

          From Chalmers Johnson's Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, p. xiv

          The CIA supported Osama bin Laden, like so many other extreme fundamentalists among the mujahideen in Afghanistan, from at least 1984 on. In 1986 it built for him the training complex and weapons storage tunnels around the Afghan city of Khost where he trained many of the 35,000 "Arab Afghans." Bin Laden's men constituted a sort of Islamic Abraham LIncoln Brigade of young volunteers from around the Muslim world who wanted to fight on the side of the Afghans against the Soviet Union. In August 1998, on President Bill Clinton's orders, the Khost complex was hit with cruise missiles, in retaliation for bin Laden's attacks that month on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. For once the CIA knew exactly where the targets were, since it had built them.

          So go ahead, tell me again that the guy who is the presumed leader of Al Qaeda was never a part of the US effort -- begun under Carter and continued and greatly expanded under Reagan -- to use Islamic fundamentalists to hobble the Soviet Union.

          by darrelplant on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:12:00 PM PDT

•  Well

  That's really not the argument "we" are using.  The 10 second (oe 30 second) argument is more like this:

  1. Bush has consistently lied about Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is only a tiny portion of the insurgency.

  2. All other insurgent groups have ATTACKED Al Qaeda, since they hate their oppressive, extremist actions,

  3. The ONLY thing Al Qaeda in Iraq has going for it is that it fights against the American "occupiers,"

  4. Therefore, once we pull out, the tiny Al Qaeda in Iraq will lose the only support it had and it will be promptly destroyed by the Iraqi nationalists who have already shown that they hate it.

  by weasel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:49:18 AM PDT

  •  IIRC most of the AQ in Iraq

    fighters are Saudi, with a few Jordanians, Syrians and others mixed in.  And yes, they are resented wherever they go, because they immediately try to dictate to the locals.  Terrorism is their main tactic - real smart, huh?

    by wozzle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:57:24 AM PDT

•  "al Queda bases" was the key phrase that Obama

  used that has been overlooked in this debate. Even McCain has stated that the "insurgency" would continue whether U.S. troops are still in Iraq or not, but that the Iraqis would have to deal with it (remember "we stand down as they stand up"?). If there are small al Queda cells remaining in Iraq that will be a matter for intelligence work and internal Iraqi security - not U.S. military ground forces. But if AQ starts holding territory and establishing actual bases like in Afghanistan, then Obama proposes U.S. military action.

  by Marinesquire on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:49:38 AM PDT

•  US troops in Iraq provoke conflict. Al Qaeda

  would likely leave Iraq, or at least the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia would be able to push them out.  Though al Qaeda is Sunni, even Iraqi Sunnis hate them.  US presence merely draws them to easy targets.  Besides, the al Qaeda argument has been made consistently for the last 4 years, and yet 60% of Americans still want us out of Iraq.  If the al Qaeda meme didn't work in 2006, why should it work now.

  by ecostar on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:50:57 AM PDT

•  Like you said, you almost got it...

  "Once we leave, the Iraqi people will have no reason to give comfort and shelter to those who would use their country as a base from which to attack America."

  The answer is, imo, The Iraqis are gonna crush Al-Qaeda in Iraq once we leave.  This has already happened as the sectarian divisions get "sorted out" (neighborhoods get ethnically cleansed), the standouts that don't belong to either side of the traditional ethnic groups get their asses kicked.

  Al-Qaeda in Iraq is only there because we are still there.

  You've got a good point here though.  This isn't a slam-dunk at all.

  Damn George Bush.

  by spotDawa on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:15 AM PDT

•  al qaeda in iraq

  the main point is that al qaeda is in iraq in order to use our troops for target practice.

  our presence there also helps their recruiting efforts.

  even donald rumsfeld acknowledged that the iraq campaign is creating terrorists faster than we can capture or kill them.

  by zeke L on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:51:50 AM PDT

  •  When Dumbsfeld spoke of

    "terrorists", he referred to Sunni Iraqis fighting both our troops and Shiites.  He tried really hard to conflate AQ with the Sunni insurgents.

    by wozzle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:00:03 AM PDT

•  I voted it's our problem, because it is our fault

  However, we do not need to have 140,00 Soldiers and Marines in Iraq to curtail them.  AQ in Iraq is not a major player in the country.  They can, and likely will cause problems when we draw down, but the political and military of Iraq are the ones that have to destroy them.

  I understand that we will still have some Military presence in Iraq, to protect our Embassy, that's not in question.

  If we have quick-reaction troops in the region, major problems can be avoided.

  JMHO  

  by leeleeFL on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:44 AM PDT

•  There's a relevant article today in the Wash Post

  "Sunni Forces Losing Patience With U.S."
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  by C Barr on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:54:25 AM PDT

•  The bigger problem is that people don't realize

  that Al Quaeda in Iraq is an insignificant force that would be wiped out by the Shiite iraqi government with ease, and probably with great relish.  The citizens of this country have been fed a steady diet of unrelenting nonsense which paints Al Quaeda in Iraq as some major threat.  This is all lies.   But the public doesn't know they're being lied to. That's the problem.  It's a complicated situation and most people aren't willing to take the time to understand it.

  by Dartagnan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM PDT

  •  Most Sunnis hate them, too, and

    would remove them from their regions of influence.  They are seen as arrogant usurpers, much as we are.

    by wozzle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:02:50 AM PDT

•  Al Qaeda in Iraq

  is best dealt with by the Iraqi people

  by forgore on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM PDT

•  As long as we are in Iraq...

  ...there will be terrorist attacks against us. By McCain's logic, and, by his own policy position, we can NEVER leave. Worse, if we are there long enough, a military conflict with Iran is inevitable.

  al Qaeda has established itself, because of our idiocy, as a respected "brand" that is adopted by islamic extremists the world over for its cache.

  Such elements exist in dozens of countries. It makes no more sense for us to fight them in Iraq via occupation, than anywhere, and everywhere else.

  We have had the ability to target terrorist camps planning attacks outside their host country before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq. The Iraq war has proven that invasion/occupation is the least efficient and counterproductive way to fight terrorism.

  In tha past couple of weeks, we have struck al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. Isn't it obvious that this tactic is superior than invading/occupying Pakistan because al Qaeda is there?

  Furthermore, the al Qaeda in Pakistan actually is directly linked to the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The al Qaeda in Iraq are not related in any way, other than they have adopted the name, and I'm not so sure they have, so much as the U.S Government has labeled them such.

  McCains argument that al Qaeda will take over that country if we leave is not supported by any facts.

  The goal of al Qaeda is to attack US targets, because they are there. Does anyone really think al Qaeda in Iraq thinks its going to take control of the Iraqi Government? What evidence is there of this, and what evidence is there that suggests such a thing is possible?

  by Sarge in Seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:01:31 AM PDT

  •  The goal of AQ in Iraq

    is to attack and terrorize any Iraqis, mainly Shiites, with whom they disagree, not just our troops.  

    by wozzle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:05:38 AM PDT

    •  I agree...

      ...and, terrible as that is, it in no way endangers America or our European allies.

      by Sarge in Seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM PDT

    •  Also...

      that dynamic wil persist regardless of whether or not the U.S. military remains in Iraq.

      by Sarge in Seattle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

•  McCain on News Hour on Thurs

  mocked Obama: "Obama would get out of Iraq but go back if AlQaeda reappeared."

  "Well, my friends (sound of fingernails on chalkboard) AlQaeda is IN Iraq, so it doesn't make sense to leave.

  "And we are succeeding in chasing AlQaeda out of Iraq."

  so which is it, AlQaeda is or isn't in Iraq?

  by Orpheus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM PDT

•  Basically,

  I don't give a shit about al Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi's will take care of that for themselves once the US gets the hell out of their country.

  What we need to focus on is stopping the loss of troops and treasure. The only purpose of it all is oil. There is no reason whatsoever to be in Iraq.

  by RustyBrown on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM PDT

  •  I don't disagree

    I'm just thinking about how the debate will play more in "middle America."

    by pragprogress on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM PDT

    •  Since

      most in the US want out of that mess, it seems to me it's being playede as it should.

      by RustyBrown on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM PDT

•  Would have been a problem a year ago

  Before the Anbar Awakening and associated Sunni anti-AQ movements this would have been a serious concern. But when AQI tried to take over the Iraqi insurgency, the Sunni tribes turned on Al Qaeda. At first they needed US weapons to do it, and frankly we could pull most of our troops out of Iraq and still give anti-AQ forces the weapons it needs. But we have a strong, permanent anti-AQ force in Iraq now that didn't exist a year ago. If we pull out of Iraq, AQ would get crushed again by fellow Sunnis.

  The only sore issue is that the Awakeners are getting angry at the Shi'ite government and the US now for not giving them more local authority. They could turn on the central government and create more chaos that AQ could exploit. But that's not enough to justify continued US presence in Iraq at this point.

  by Elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:21:23 AM PDT

•  Brand name

  With the exception of a few organizers, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group of people who want to be in Al Qaeda.
  They like Al Qaeda just like the American Nazi party likes Hitler. They weren ot involved in 9/11 any more than the American Nazi party fought against us in WWII>

  by Frank Palmer on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

•  The argument is moot...

  ... bexcause we Americans are about to find out that one, we can't afford this war or Afghanistan anymore. And two, that we have bigger fish to fry at home. All proving how prescient Osama bin Laden was in terms of his goal of bankrupting the United States:

  "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

  He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

  "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

  "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

  "Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

  "It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.

  "And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."

  by friday durdikova on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM PDT

•  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

  When you say Al-Quaeda was not in Iraq before BushCo's flaming clusterfuck, but they are there now, you are absolutely wrong. "Al-Quaeda in Iraq" is not Al-Quaeda™. They're not! It's a largely home-grown bunch of angry Sunnis leavened with a small smattering of foreign Arabs. It is completely separate from the Al-Quaeda of Osama bin-Laden and Zawahiri; you know, the guys who actually attacked on 9/11. Furthermore, Al-Quaeda in Iraq™ is roundly despised by most local Sunnis and (especially) Shias. They are all dead meat 30 seconds after the U.S. pulls out of Iraq.

  Framing this the way you are doing it, plays right into the hands of the morons who got us into this disaster in the first place. When in a hole, first stop digging.

  by Ralphdog on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:37:53 AM PDT

  •  I know the difference between

    Al Qaeda in Iraq and the "real" Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But I think it's silly to think that there on different planets or something. It's 2008 folks, there's such a thing as cars and trucks, and airplanes, and the internet and phones, etc. I don't think it's going to ring particularly authentic to the American people to try to claim that this group of violent terrorists going by the name of Al Qaeda has absolutely nothing to do with this other group of violent terrorists a few hundred miles away.

    But I do think you're point is valid. If we believe that that they will be wiped out as soon as we leave Iraq, then that's the that's what needs to be said, loudly and clearly at every opportunity.

    by pragprogress on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM PDT

    •  They stole the brand name.

      Sort of like all the Republicans lining up to claim the mantle of Saint Ronnie.

      by Ralphdog on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:11 AM PDT

•  Getting around the Fog Machine

  Two things: Correct, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded, but an important point to make is that this is not the SAME Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. It's a copycat and represents a small percentage of all the attacks against us and to the extent that it consists of foreign fighters will be repudiated by the Iraqis once they are rid of the common enemy--us.

  Second, someone needs to point out the "sleight of mind" that is being pulled by the Bushies and their willing lap dogs, the press. Every attack, roadside bomb, suicide bombing, PLUS all the enemy casualty figures are constantly referred to as Al Qaeda, which is just a big lie. They are using the name Al Qaeda in situations where it does not belong to reinforce the impression at home that everybody we are fighting in Iraq is the minions of Osama bin Laden. Most of the attacks come from Iraqis who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda--either the original or this home-grown knock-off.

  by Cardshark on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM PDT