Saudi Arabia has one of the largest concentrations of Islamic radicals on the planet, and for decades it was a place where al Qaeda members could hide, if they kept quiet. But al Qaeda began a series of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia after the United States invaded Iraq two years ago, and brought themselves into direct conflict with the Saudi Arabian government. This war has not gone well for al Qaeda. The attacks killed mostly Moslems, and many Saudi Arabians as well. This turned most Saudis against the terrorists, despite the Islamic conservatism of most of the population. In the last two years, about a hundred terrorists, and 39 policemen, have been killed. Early on, Saudi Arabia drew up a list of the 26 most wanted terrorists. Only three of these are still at large.The Kingdom's sudden resolve probably was prompted by the widespread perception that terrorists in Iraq are on their heels, as Austin Bay and The Belmont Club recently concluded:
[H]istorians in retrospect will understand the Iraqi insurgency was not something spontaneously ignited by outbreaks of looting in Baghdad in the aftermath of OIF, but a meeting engagement between two prepared forces. Iraq, as Princeton's Michael Doran observed, was intended to be the graveyard of America's counteroffensive against terror. Instead the enemy dug the grave for themselves. What we are seeing now is not simply the rout of a few armed men, but terror's greatest defeat in modern times.Writing for CBS News, James Robbins elaborates on the terrorists' error:
Last Saturday's attack on Abu Ghraib in particular is a case study in how not to conduct guerilla warfare. Al Qaeda assaulted the prison complex from several directions with rockets, mortars, car bombs and small arms. The battle raged for two hours. No Americans were killed; 16 were slightly wounded, seven others hurt more seriously. Between 40 and 60 terrorists took part, and they admitted to ten killed, a KIA rate of 17-25 percent. The overall enemy casualty rate including wounded was probably over 50 percent. No prisoners were freed. Al Qaeda claimed the raid was a success, but a few more victories like this and their insurgency will be over.Or, more simply, we're winning.
Terrorists and guerillas have a hard time with stand-up fights. The reason they are unconventional warriors in the first place is that their relative weakness prevents them from fighting symmetrical, force-on-force engagements. If they could place effective armies in the field, they would. But for various reasons — small numbers, lack of popular support, no significant heavy weapons, and no possibility of air support to name a few — they lack the capacity to engage in pitched battles. They have to fight hit and run actions, in which running is as important as hitting, if not more so. When insurgents group together, they lose their mobility and present attractive targets. When they attack well-armed troops in strong defensive positions, they risk annihilation. All the guerillas have going for them at that point is the element of surprise, and they can only make these types of attacks a few times before Coalition forces begin searching for signs of preparation and mounting preemptive strikes.
Our increasingly-assured success is a consequence of the Bush Doctrine, says Belmont Club reader Tilo:
I often wonder if Pres. Bush understood the exact nature of the battle that he was going to fight when he invaded Iraq. I believe that he had a notion about Democracy and it's contagious effect that was probably right. I don't think that he ever understood that he was entering into a fight for the heart and the existence of Islam. But it is something that Imams around the world understood instinctively. The message went around the world and the true Muslim faithful, the ones that understood the survival requirements for their religion, shot into action. Democracy needed to be defeated on the Arabian penninsula or it would be the eventual death of Islam as a religion which dominated the lives of 1.3 million people.Victor Davis Hanson offered a similar diagnosis:
The Muslim faithful will tell you that Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. The more hard core elements will tell you that Islam and Democracy cannot co-exists. You must either live by the laws of god or the laws of man. Islam, more so than Judaism or Christianity, defines and regulates every aspect of life. In many ways it is more of a collection of laws, of does and don't, of modes of behaviour, than it is a source of spiritual guidance. This means that if you allow people to vote for the things that regulate their daily lives you will quickly run into contradictions with how Islam mandates that they must run their lives. . .
For Islamists, the installation of Democracy in the middle of the Arabian peninsula was immediatley recognized as a fight for the life of Islam. The fight to save Iraq from Democracy immediately rose to the very top of the lists of Jihads that must be fought for Islam. Blowing up some Americans in America would be pointless if Iraq were lost. . .
Whether Bush did it intentionally or not, when he entered Iraq he created a magnet for Islamists. He defined the field where the fight would be held.
[T]he dilemma was an exclusively autocratic Arab Middle East. It was a mess where every bankrupt and murderous notion — Soviet-style Communism, crack-pot Baathism, radical pan-Arabism, lunatic Khadafism, "moderate" monarchy, old-style dictatorship, and eighth-century theocracy — had been tried and had failed, with terrible consequences well before September 11.Though I immediately would interrupt him, just this once, I agree with Dan Rather--"Courage."
Only democracy was new. And only democracy — and its twin of open-market capitalism — offered any hope to end the plague of tribalism, gender apartheid, human-rights abuses, religious fanaticism, and patriarchy that so flourished within such closed societies. . .
The villain is no longer the old idea of Aramco or 'big oil,' but the absence of transparency that allows an Arab elite to rake in billions without popular scrutiny. For all the hatred of Israel, millions in the Middle East are beginning to see that Arafat was more a kleptocrat than a leader, and that Israel, not Syria, got out of Lebanon. . . .
The next problem we face is not that we have pushed democracy too abruptly in once-hostile lands, but that we have not pushed it enough into so-called friendly territory. It is, of course, dangerous to promote democracy in the Middle East, but more dangerous still to pause in our efforts, and, finally, most dangerous of all to quit before seeing this bold gambit through to its logical end — an end that alone will end the pathologies that led to September 11.
(via Instapundit and Donald Sensing)
3 comments:
Carl, I think it is very true that the hard-core Wahabist factions had to fight in Iraq or be exposed as hypocrites, because Islamic doctrine requires defending the world of Islam against foreign invaders.
But I don't think it is fair at all to depict Islam as one-note and inflexible. Islamic authorities in Iraq have largely swung to supporting the new government and announcing that it is allowable to sign up for the police or the army. Of course, there had to be an independent Iraqi government before they could do this.
And that leads me to an interesting question:
Before the Iraqi elections all those who had opposed the invasion were demanding the election be postponed. Many of them argued that the Sunnis would not be properly represented. Some argued on the grounds that order would have to be restored before a valid election could take place.
Both of those positions were completely groundless, because the elections were a prerequisite for restoring order, and requiring that the Sunnis participate when they refused to do so on a one-person-one-vote basis pretty obviously defeats the purpose of a democratic election.
So were the protests against the Iraqi election really aimed at defeating George Bush's attempt to set up a democratic government in Iraq?
M_O_M, regarding your first question:
As you know, I don't think democracy is ill suited for Arabs. But Islam in its present form may be. That's because the Koran, and therefore Muslims, don't distinguish mosque and state. Democracy didn't flower in Christian Europe until 1) the Peace of Westphalia (1648) essentially established freedom of religion between states and, 2) the Protestant Reformation which, over time, grew into religious liberty within states. There’s no reason to believe Islam is any different.
So, as I've previously argued, "America and the West are racing against time. Some day, perhaps, a 'Martin al-Luther' may reform Islam. But that might take centuries. Until then, protecting our rights, religion and respect requires military force."
I agree Islam isn't just “one-note”. But, right now, it's mostly inflexible. Broad-minded Muslims, common in the United States, are not our enemies. Inflexible Islam, and Islamics, are.
M_O_M, regarding your second question:
Yes, absolutely—the anti-war left has been inconsistent from the start. No fans of the military or defense spending, they now regularly castigate the President for mythical under-funding and unproven equipment shortages. Their rhetorical quiver is stuffed with questions like “What about North Korea? Or China? Or Africa?” even though, were Bush to propose intervention elsewhere, they’d don tinfoil hats, take to the streets, and chant “No Blood for Kimchi’i” in a Manhattan minute.
And they’re all over the map on the occupation. Beginning in the fall of 2003, liberals and Europeans called Bush's time-table for returning Iraqi sovereignty too slow. In the run-up to the January 30th election, many said the timetable was too fast, and urged postponement. And now some are insisting on early withdrawal, despite having previously sought to delay the vote and, a fortiori, our exit.
Blue State liberals are better known for whining than military wisdom. Instead, they insist the war is unjust because no son of Bush, DeLay or Lott is in uniform. Of course, this straw man ignores the fact that all our troops are volunteers. Moreover, should a somehow-reborn conscription stick ‘um in a uniform, most Deaniacs would hop the next Greyhound headed for the 49th parallel.
It’s all about Bush. It’s always been. But I never thought it would go this far: As everyone knows, world's easiest job is at the Quai d'Orsay (French Foreign Office). No thinking required--just support the opposite of whatever our Department of State favors. Already committed to opposition while avoiding action, the anti-war left’s so unnerved by President Bush they’ve forsaken reason for reaction—and so become French.
Post a Comment