Iraq

IRAQ
Gustave LeBon wrote The Crowd, perhaps the most influential book ever written on social psychology, after witnessing events of the French Revolution. In it LeBon asserts that, "The obedience of crowds to suggestions - the images invoked in the mind of crowds are accepted by them as realities. Crowds do not admit doubt or uncertainty and always go to extremes." That is, panics have a logic of their own; once they ripple through a crowd all reason is discarded. It is just this phenomenon that we can observe today as to perceived reality regarding developments in Iraq. Most foreign policy makers, most reporters here and abroad no longer have any interest in what is actually happening in Iraq or any consideration of the likely outcomes of different policy options. They are in a headlong, mindless rush to discredit the war. Much of our population, lacking the time, wherewithal or intellect to do their homework, simply accept (and with a marked degree of servility) and have joined them.

In fact those Americans who care for the security of their country, who care for the welfare of their families, those Congressmen who but for the bravery of a few aboard United flight 93 would have been incinerated in their offices (and understand the odds for an encore), all Americans in fact would be greatly cheered by recent developments in Iraq - if they just knew. As Charles Krauthamer reports, '"Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times' John Burns calls an "astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq. The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province -- just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar – where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades have turned against al-Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces."' As we detailed in our post of June/17, al Qaeda has become its own worst enemy.

Still, many in Washington argue that we are in the midst of a civil war; although most of those agree that al Qaeda is in fact our enemy, they argue that the fight belongs elsewhere. As we highlighted earlier, this is not a civil war but a contrivance of al Qaeda with the single purpose to destabilize the region. This is not conjecture. Here is what the now-deceased leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, reported to bin Laden and Zawahiri back in 2004, when the strategy was first designed, in a letter intercepted by U.S. forces:
"The Shi’a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religions, political and military symbols will maek them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi’a..."

And why Iraq? Because of the strategic location, because it is close to the Persian Gulf oil fields, a high-value target, and, because it is a more useful staging area for attacks on neighboring countries, including Israel. Further, al Qaida finds it much easier to recruit jihadists and operate from Sunni Arab regions in Iraq than in Afghanistan or Pakistan, where Arab travelers stand out.

Leave now? Why is it so hard to understand that we cannot? Al-Qaeda leaders have vowed that after they "expel the Americans from Iraq" they will launch a "jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq." The National Intelligence Estimate – the collective judgment of the U.S. intelligence community – concurs: In the wake of too-early American withdrawals, al-Qaeda would use its strongholds in Iraq "to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq." In fact, most politicians understand the risk. Thus, we cannot avoid the conclusion that many from the left are willing to mortgage their nation’s future in exchange for a few more years in office.

Lincoln was regularly criticized by the press, scorned by Washington society, the target of lofty condescension from Eastern sophisticates (who would become Stalin’s "useful idiots"in the next century), called clumsy, inept, and a "knuckle dragging cro-magnon" by one observer. The northern Democrats then too were defeatists or pretended to be, hoping to cash in on voter disillusionment with the war. But on election day, November 8, 1864, the New York Times editorialized that, "before this morning’s sun sets, the destinies of this republic, so far as depends on human agency, are to be settled for weal or for woe." To choose Lincoln was to choose "war, tremendous and terrible, yet ushering in at the end every national security and glory." To choose the Democrats was to choose, "the mocking shadow of a peace....sure to rob us of our birthright, and to entail upon our children a dissevered Union and ceaseless strife." Lincoln knew southern leaders were irreconcilable; he would not negotiate with bullies. First order of the day was complete and total defeat of the enemy - unconditional surrender. All he needed was the right general. We all pray that we have one now.