McCain vs. Obama: Al Qaeda in Iraq

[Sefarst]

I guess I should have been clearer. My suggestion was suppose to be that if the USA leaves Iraq, there will be no reason for Al-Qaeda to be ACTIVE there (ie bombing, killing, etc...) and so therefore, i suspect they will not be seen there.

So if the US left Afghanistan, there would be no reason for Al Qaeda to be active there either, right? We aren't after Al Qaeda because of their activity in the Middle East, we're after them because of their activity OUTSIDE the Middle East. Sadly, if they would have kept their killings and bombings over there, the West would probably have barely noticed.

Will they use Iraq as a "base" in order to regroup...perhaps, but Al-Qaeda members can likely be found doing the same in UAE, Egypt, and Pakistan...will McCain et al take American Soldiers into these countries as well?

Once again, our reason for being in Iraq isn't just that Al Qaeda is there. It's one of several reasons that include maintaining stability in the young democracy, helping rebuild the country, fighting insurgents, etc. I think there would only be a good reason to go into Pakistan, Egypt, and UAE if Al Qaeda were based there and those governments refused to do anything about it. As of now, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are in Pakistan, but the Pakistani military is working to keep them out and hunt them down. Egypt is not particularly sympathetic to Al Qaeda (though many Egyptians are, I'm referring to the government) and has imprisoned their members both in the present and the past (Zawahiri). Al Qaeda members have made several attacks in Egypt and, while their doctrine might gain some sympathy, the movement itself is generally disregarded. Despite the ranks of Al Qaeda having many Saudis, bin Ladin is a sworn enemy of the Saudi government (though I would like to see a much firmer hand taken with them).

 

[Darth Rotor]

Whatever Obama said...right or wrong... McCain's assertion that withdrawl will inevitably ( "undoubtedly" was the word he used) lead to AlQeda taking over Iraq has gone essentially uncontested by the media. And it is wrong. No one seriously believe -- regardless of the very real threat that AlQeda may pose to Iraqi stability -- that AlQeda can win in Iraq.

Al Qaeda so believes. They are playing the long game.

.. They'd have to subdue the majority Shiia and the Kurds. And, they would invite an invasion form Iran...which, interestingly, might bring the US back in on the side of AlQeda. Hmmmm.

Well played.

Politics and strange bedfellows for five hundred, Alex.

DING! DING! DING! DING!

It's the Daily Double!

DR

 

[Sefarst]

Whatever Obama said...right or wrong...McCain's assertion that withdrawl will inevitably ( "undoubtedly" was the word he used) lead to AlQeda taking over Iraq has gone essentially uncontested by the media. And it is wrong. No one seriously believe -- regardless of the very real threat that AlQeda may pose to Iraqi stability -- that AlQeda can win in Iraq... They'd have to subdue the majority Shiia and the Kurds. And, they would invite an invasion form Iran...which, interestingly, might bring the US back in on the side of AlQeda. Hmmmm.

Sadam Hussein was able to subdue the Shia and the Kurds and Al Qaeda has allied itself with radical governments in the past (see: Taliban, Afghanistan).

 

[joobz]

OK, at face value, Obama supports the Turkish incursions into Iraq to hunt down and destroy PKK cells. I suspect Talibani doesn't mind it himself, as it hurts his political opponent within the Kurdish bloc.

DR

Not to demonstrate my thickheadedness but...
What's your point? becuase I'm not seeing it.

 

[marksman]

I'm confused by what you call a factual error?

Here is what he said:

always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And 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. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.​

Now, clearly "base" doesn't mean a physical structure. It means a base of support and security from which attacks can be planned.

The use of the word "if" would indicate he doesn't believe Al Qaeda is "forming a base in Iraq" but of course, that's what they are trying to accomplish. It indicates an ignorance that Al Qaeda is presently there.

Now, I don't think that's what Obama intended to convey. I think he meant to include the word "successfully" before "forming", but he didn't. I think he knew about Al Qaeda in Iraq and spoke badly.

But I can also see someone who thinks Obama is insufficiently educated about foreign policy thinking he was ignorant of Al Qaeda in Iraq. So I don't think McCain's attack was mere politicking. I think he was pointing out a perceived ignorance of Obama.

Obama misspoke. It was a small error. no big deal. McCain perceived (in error) it as a demonstration of ignorance. So he attacked it. That's what he should do. Obama responded forcefully.

Both made a small error. Whoop-de-doo.

 

[headscratcher4]

Sadam Hussein was able to subdue the Shia and the Kurds and Al Qaeda has allied itself with radical governments in the past (see: Taliban, Afghanistan).

Saddam was able to do so for a variety of reasons...most of which would never apply to AlQeda. The Brits, when they left Iraq, left the Sunni Arabs in power in a monarchy (the Turks, also sunni, promoted sunnis over shiia). Saddam and the baathist were part of the nationalist miltary coup -- organized by a military dominated by Sunnis -- that overthrew the Monarchy. Saddam worked his way up the coup ladder, killing all who got in his way, but essentially it was sunni control all the way. He didn't have to impose sunni control because the sunnis were already in charge of the organs of government, particularly the army.

Also, demographically, the shiia (and I may be mis-remember this) have been breeding like rabits and have outpaced the sunni Arabs.

In any event, liberated Shiia given the reigns of government are unlikely to go quietly into that AlQeda night. Indeed, given the history of the middle east, they are as likely as not to engage in a little Saddam-like revenge on all Sunni in an effort to quell any serious AlQeda threat.

Also, you have to establish somehow that AlQeda in Iraq isn't just one of several insurgent players, but the principal player and that it would triumph in an uncontrlled situation over other factions. Nothing I've seen, save the pronouncement of the Administration (and yes, you certainly can trust the Administration on these issues) suggests that AlQeda in Iraq has much support or a base, just the ability to operate as terrorist...rather than as insurgents that seem likely to be able to impose themselves as government over a unified state.

And, again, anything approaching a real AlQeda in Iraq victory would likely bring Iran more dramatically into the game whether we're there or not...not to mention Syria and Saudi Arabia -- both of which would seriously worry about an AlQeda in Iraq dominated Iraq.

And, you also have to keep in mind that AlQeda in Iraq -- which came to Iraq because of the US Invation -- contains more than a few foriegn Arab fighters. Iraqi's are very nationalistic, expecially at this time, it seems unlikely that a movement that owes allegience or control to a foriegn establishment (i.e. AlQeda in pakistan) would win the day. Iraqi's would resent the interference...it might even be the thing that brings the sunni and shiia temporarilly together.

The long-view for AlQeda in Iraq is only good, imo, so long as we stay. It gives them focus and legitimacy that their numbers, ideology and tactics would otherwise not command. Staying to win, it seems to me, means staying to play even more into their warped hands. They can't beat us, but -- like Castro throwing up a US Invasion as an excuse for his tyrany -- it gives them something to rally around.