Thursday, October 20, 2005
The NYT locates al Qaeda in Iraq
The relative role of al Qaeda in the Iraq insurgency -- as opposed to Ba'athist rejectionists and Sunni nationalists -- has become an inherently partisan question. Supporters of immediate American withdrawal jump on any evidence that al Qaeda or "foreign" fighters are a small consideration, while stay-the-coursers tend to emphasize al Qaeda. The reason for this is obvious: al Qaeda declared war on the United States back in the nineties, and it is our enemy independently of the Ba'athist rejectionists with whom it has made common cause. If it is in Iraq in force, then an American withdrawal is a retreat in our war with al Qaeda, which is a lot less palatable politically than backing away from from a Vietnam-style "nationalist" insurgency.
It was, therefore, with no small interest that I read this paragraph in the New York Times story on Saddam Hussein's trial:
This is, in fact, the ultimate response to those who would withdraw from Iraq now. Whether we planned to turn Iraq into a battle with al Qaeda or blundered in to it, that is what Iraq now is, and we must not retreat.
It was, therefore, with no small interest that I read this paragraph in the New York Times story on Saddam Hussein's trial:
Mr. Hussein, ever a showman in his years of power, made much of little with his performance in the court. He arrived carrying a green-backed Koran that he clasped on his knees, a powerful message in a country wracked by a war in which Islamic militants with Al Qaeda links have become the American troops' most deadly enemies, and allies of bitter-end Baathists.
This is, in fact, the ultimate response to those who would withdraw from Iraq now. Whether we planned to turn Iraq into a battle with al Qaeda or blundered in to it, that is what Iraq now is, and we must not retreat.
0 Comments:
