Justus For All

TigerHawk offers some strategic analysis of the Iraq war.

The best answer, or at least the answer that will best withstand the scrutiny of history, is that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, wittingly or not, put al Qaeda in an almost impossible position. We invaded and occupied a country in the heart of the Arab Middle East. If al Qaeda had railed against the mere presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia was both intolerable — al Qaeda’s image and self-image could not suffer such a grave indignity — and a tempting opportunity to humiliate the only remaining “superpower.” Al Qaeda had to declare its objective to be the defeat of the United States in Iraq. (This is, by the way, why the characterization of the eventual withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is of strategic importance in and of itself, but that is the subject of another post.)Of course, Al Qaeda clearly believed that it could drive the United States from Iraq just as Osama bin Laden believed that we would not have the stomach to invade Afghanistan, or that he and his mujahideen could push Saddam’s armies out of Kuwait without the help of the Americans. Unfortunately, the army and Marines of the United States and its allies proved to be much harder targets than al Qaeda imagined, and George W. Bush and Tony Blair were more able to withstand domestic political opposition than just about anybody expected they would be. Soon, it became clear that al Qaeda would not be able to drive the Coalition from Iraq no matter how many Sunni Ba’athists it recruited.

I think this perspective has merit.  One of the interesting aspects of the ”war on terror’  and the ‘jihad against the west’ (to use the alternate framings for the same conflict) is that most of the ‘military’ acts are more important as props for ideological framing then they are intrinsically military signifigant.  The real battlespace is philosophical, taking place in the minds of the various populace.

This is something that I think Al-Qaida has understood better then most of us in the west, and they certainly have been for the most part far more proficient at employing propaganda, both internally (within Muslim society) and externally.  This is greatly balanced though by the simple fact that the democratic pro-freedom philosophy exemplified by the west is much more suited to the realities of a modern globalized society then then tribalist, medieval philosophy that Al-Qaida wants to promote.

Of course it is true though that while the democratic/capitialist philosophy is more effective in the modern world, it is the very uncertainties and uncontrollable changes of the modern world that make this sort of primitive fundamentalist philosophies attractive.  The undeniable uncertainties of a globalized world (which are clearly present in Western nations and even more prevelent in third world countires) make a simple, clear cut philosophy extremely attactive.  We can see all over people looking back to a ‘golden age’ and embracing the philosophies of that imagined time, regardless of how unsuitible those philosphies may be to our own times,  as a buffer against the chaos that is modern life.  Of course Al-Qaida is one clear example of this, but in our own society I think that the social conservatives/evangelical fundamentalists and the leftist groups are both examples of this as well (obviously looking back at different golden ages.)

I expect that we will continue to see this struggle manifest itself in other places as well.