NYT: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

2006-09-24 (Sunday) by Gregory Tucker.

“By MARK MAZZETTI”

Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Is anybody really surprised by this assessment? Going to war in Iraq could be justified on the basis of providing a front for engaging the jihadists off American soil. This made sense as long as the jihadists remained the same and simply and they refocused their energies on the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

But wasn’t it obvious that the occupation of Iraq was going to create a new generation of jihadists? After depriving the jihadists of a breeding and training ground in Afghanistan, was it the best use of American resources to create a new training ground for them in Iraq?

Of course the official explanation (WMD) was never anything but a way to sell the war to the American public. The real reasons for the invasion may have included:

1. The need to establish credibility among the jihadists. Reagan withdrew the Marines after the bombing of the Marine Barracks in 1983 that killed 220 people, and Clinton withdrew from Somalia after experiencing casualties there. The United States developed the reputation of a paper tiger who would run away at the first sign of trouble.
2. Provide an alternative base for U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia. The soldiers in Soldiers in Saudi Arabia were a sore point for all parties. The jihadists opposed the invasion of their holy land. Saudi Arabia resented being made a terrorist taget because of that. And the U.S. disliked Saudi controls on U.S. military operations. Iraq was a natural candidate.
3. A U.S. military presence in Iraq could naturally be used to put pressure on neighboring Syria and Iran.

We were successful in the first and second goals, with some provisos. The jihadists have a 50 or 100 year span of attention. Therefore they will claim victory for forcing the U.S. to withdraw after 5 or 10 years. Furthermore, a stable Iraq government would not welcome a permanent U.S. presence in their country. We have seen that Iraq does not have a stable government, so the U.S. propped pseudo-democratically elected government will welcome a U.S. military presence for the foreseeable future.

On goal 3, the war was a dismal failure. Syria and Iran fear a U.S. invasion even less now than they did before the occupation of Iraq. If anything, the occupation has demonstrated the limitations of the U.S. military, which are different from the perceptions of those limitations before the occupation. In other words, perceptions of U.S. military strength and weakness have shifted as a result of the occupation of Iraq.

Overall the Bush Administration has achieved some of its goals of the invasion, and failed in others. Was it worth the effort? Right now the answer appears to be a resounding no, but it should be noted that the war did not fail to achieve all its objectives.

Posted in Security | Print | 1 Comment »