War of Words of War

Battle lines are quickly being drawn, even as party candidates have yet been declared.  The Iraqi War is already becoming a point of contention, with Barack Obama saying in one debate, ‘If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”  John McCain responded, saying, “For Senator Obama to say he would consider going back militarily if al Qaeda was in Iraq when Al Qaeda is in Iraq is probably one of the more remarkable statements that have been made on American national security policy.”  Of course, this drew the attention of Obama, who claimed, “I have some news for John McCain.  There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”  John McCain quickly responded by stating, “Al Qaeda is in Iraq.  It’s called Al-Qaeda-in Iraq.”

So let’s have some straight talk. I have done a little research on the topic, as I feel it is important to provide an accurate timeline, or at least as accurate as I can provide given the uncertainty of the data gathered, specifically concerning a Jordanian militant named Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and his role in Iraq.

- 1989.  Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi moves to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, who are already leaving.  Reportedly, he meets Osama bin Laden here.  Instead of fighting, Al-Zarqawi becomes an Islamic journalist.
- Early 1990s.  Al-Zarqawi forms al-Tawhid, a Jordanian Islamic militant group, which carries out a number of terrorist acts in Jordan and throughout the Middle East.
- September 11, 2001.  Al Qaeda attacks the United States.  Al-Zarqawi moves to Afghanistan, joining Taliban and Al Qaeda forces to fight American troops.
- December 2001.  Al-Zarqawi flees to Iran as the Taliban falls.
- Early 2002.  Al-Zarqawi placed on FBI’s Most Wanted List as an Al Qaeda member, still at large.
- Summer 2002.  Al-Zarqawi moves his base, Tawhid Jihad, to northern Iraq, at times operating out of Baghdad.
- October 11, 2002.  Congress passes the Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq.
- February 5, 2003.  Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presents the case to invade Iraq before the United Nations, dedicating over 1000 words to Al-Zarqawi, and attempts to tie Al-Qaeda to Iraq based largely on Al-Zarqawi’s presence there.
- March 20, 2003.  Iraqi invasion begins, without U.N. consent.
- October 2004.  Al-Zarqawi renames his Tawhid Jihad group “Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq” and pledges his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, who appoints him as a deputy.
- June 7, 2006.  American air strike kills Al-Zarqawi, attributed with over 700 deaths in Iraq prior to the invasion, and thousands of deaths at the time of his death.

Although these details are complicated, to simply say Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. invasion is to err in factual representation.  It may feel good to have a crowd roar behind you when presenting a popular doctrine, albeit false.  The false nature of its doctrine is undiminished, no matter the magnitude of applause, or in liberal journalism’s case, the number of subscriptions, it otherwise draws.  It is worth noting that the FBI felt Al-Zarqawi was “Al Qaeda enough” to add him to their Most Wanted List in Early 2002, and later, in the summer of 2002, he moved his base to Iraq, before the vote to invade was cast by Congress; his presence there was indeed an Administration talking point before the invasion.  This makes it difficult, for two reasons, to say that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until “George Bush and John McCain” decided to invade, since the White House and both Houses of Congress decided to invade, and Al Qaeda operatives were in fact in Iraq prior to that crucial vote.

Looking ahead to the approaching debate over Iraq, it is also not enough to say going into Iraq was a mistake.  The faulty intelligence, upon which this war was based, was brought to light long ago.  To insinuate the Bush Administration, much less President Bush, deliberately misguided the American people is somewhat unfounded.  I am tempted to quote then-Congressman Abraham Lincoln’s criticism of President Polk, who “plunged us into war” with Mexico, but I think the flawed decision-making runs deeper than a devious hoodwinking by a President and his War Cabinet.  Let’s not forget that both parties, Republican and Democrat, voted for this war.  Let’s not forget that an honorable man, Colin Powell, staked his reputation on this war when he presented the case to the international community.  Quoting Powell before the United Nations, he made the case, saying, “We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates.  This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.”  This turned out to be false.  Although Al-Qaeda was in Iraq, there was no link to Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government.  I do not think these blunders and missteps were made in vain.  I believe the cherry-picked intelligence upon which this war was based was nothing more than a “self-fulfilling prophecy;” we saw what we wanted to see amongst the mountain of information we had collected.  If I am wrong, and in fact the intelligence was specifically selected to con us into war, then those who knew this was the case are liable as war criminals, to be judged by the American people and God Himself.  With some scanned letterheads and ancient signatures as evidence pointing to possible fraudulence, actions by some members of the Administration may someday come to justice.

But back to the 2008 Presidential race:  To simply say the management of the war was shoddy is not a good argument for the Democrats to bring against Senator McCain.  Senator McCain staked his reputation on the war effort by fighting Bush and Rumsfeld on its management, including troop levels, almost immediately after its conception.  McCain called for a surge in 2004, and was chastised for it.  Now, in 2008, everyone will admit the surge is working.  This is precisely why the economy is the priority issue now, since a majority of Americans disagreed with the war in general and the surge in particular not long ago, and Americans do not want to admit they were wrong by bringing up Iraq, although the topic is still on the table, as it is a formidable segment of a new way forward in our national security policy.

The true debate to wage is now rising to the surface:  What actions should be taken in the event of a resurgence of violence after withdrawal from Iraq?  John McCain has said he would stay in Iraq as long as it takes, “even 100 years,” to ensure we will not have to go back.  Hillary Clinton has said she would get out, and stay out, if the Iraqi government says so.  Barack Obama has said he would get out, and go back in if an accurate assessment was made to do so, regardless of the Iraqi government’s desires.  This is telling.  Obama has made it clear he would invade our ally Pakistan, without their consent, if there was intelligence Al-Qaeda was there.  He also claims he would sit down with both Raul Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with no preconditions.  A year ago, I would often find that the same people who wanted to withdraw from Iraq also wanted to invade Sudan to stop genocide there, although the Sudanese government forbids our entry.  These are examples of a crippled, incongruent American foreign policy.  Our generation’s challenge is to reestablish a common approach founded on principles upon which Americans can generally agree.

We must ask ourselves, “What would happen if we pulled out of Iraq?”  I cannot tell you, but the converse of the question, “What happens if we do not get out of Iraq?” is the name of a chapter in George McGovern and William Polk’s book, Out of Iraq, a case for withdrawal that shirks the surge and its efforts.  They answer the question by first saying, “Getting out with dignity and making every effort to do so in a way that will leave behind us the best possible climate for rebuilding, re-growth, and peace is the right thing to do.”  I totally agree.  This is subsequently followed by a statement I believe contradicts the former by calling for a “rapid withdrawal from Iraq.”  History has yet been written for Iraq, or for this election; I only hope we can look back favorably on both.

“History is blind, but man is not.” – Robert Penn Warren, from All the Kings Men

“I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place on the battlefield of the media.” – Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, in a direct letter to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in Iraq, attempting to persuade him from continuing attacks on Iraqi Shiites