Delivering victory for Al Qaeda
By overemphasizing the role of Al Qaeda in Iraq, hasn't the White House created a situation where Al Qaeda will receive overemphasized credit when the US has to leave?
If the US was stymied in the face of a civil war, there would be no broadly perceived victor. If the US says that it is fighting Al Qaeda, and then doesn't win, doesn't that help Al Qaeda?
(Or is it setting up a post-Bush situation where the next president can be portrayed as capitulating to Al Qaeda?)
(EPM triggered these questions.)
If the US was stymied in the face of a civil war, there would be no broadly perceived victor. If the US says that it is fighting Al Qaeda, and then doesn't win, doesn't that help Al Qaeda?
(Or is it setting up a post-Bush situation where the next president can be portrayed as capitulating to Al Qaeda?)
(EPM triggered these questions.)
posted by mikevotes at
9:17 AM
5 Comments:
I think all the emphasis on Al Quaida is because they refuse to admit they are fighting Iraqi nationalists. I also think Bush expects someone like Giuliani to get elected and keep the war going.
By
Anonymous, at 10:37 AM
I wouldn't doubt the Giuliani belief at all. Their political calculations still don't take into account just how deep their unpopularity is.
By
mikevotes, at 11:00 AM
I think the emphasis on al Qaeda is because it ties everything to 9-11 in the collective American subconsciousness, without having to utter the words "9-11."
Al Qaeda is like Hitler in the political dialog... No one can be for al Qaeda or Hitler. So the insinuation is that if I'm fighting "al Qaeda" and you criticize my methods, then you must be an al Qaeda sympathizer.
But as Mike points out -- and I fully concur -- to make "al Qaeda" the reason we're in this quagmire is to assign to al Qaeda a level of legitimacy, effectiveness and stature that not only do they not deserve, but also that they can use to great effect among frustrated and disenfranchised Muslims in the region.
Indeed Bush's obsession with needing to appear as the decisive Western (read: Christian) victor in forcing the region into his vision, has cause him to almost fetishize al Qaeda as the quintessential Evil. It is not his fault his godly righteous endeavor is bogged down. It's the devil al Qaeda's doing.
When we reshape the language to focus on reality of sectarian infighting, civil war, and criminal endeavors -- in which al Qaeda does indeed play a role -- only then will we be able to squelch the ranks of lock-step Republican obstructionists and actually move forward in Iraq.
By
-epm, at 11:17 AM
There are probably so many AQ affiliates and sympathizers now it's probably hard to know who's who. I don't suppose they wear badges.
By
Anonymous, at 1:13 PM
EPM, yes. And Saddam was behind 9/11. And, now, Hezbullah was, too.
That convolution is very powerful, and because of that, very useful.
And I think the externalizing of the failure in Iraq to Al Qaeda is also pretty important, even if it's not a fully conscious, choice.
....
Anon, True, but at the same time, you can't inexactly group them all together.
Only real Al Qaeda is thus far Al Qaeda. Right now there are alot of groups claiming that mantle for their own specific goals, mostly local, and grouping them in with the big boys diverts effort and resources.
Any group that uses terrorism is bad, but are we going to go and fight the Tamil Tigers? That's not our fight.
By
mikevotes, at 1:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home