A Heads-Up To My Friends On The Left

This headline is an eye-catcher - "Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda's Ranks, Report Says":

War in Iraq (news - web sites) has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said on Wednesday in its annual report.

The 2003-2004 edition of the British-based think-tank's annual bible for defense analysts, The Military Balance, said Washington's assertions after the Iraq conflict that it had turned the corner in the war on terror were "over-confident."

The report, widely considered an authoritative text on the military capabilities of states and militant groups worldwide, could prove fodder for critics of the U.S.-British invasion and of the reconstruction effort that has followed in Iraq.

Washington must impose security in Iraq to prevent the country from "ripening into a cause celebre for radical Islamic terrorists," it concluded. "Nation-building" in Iraq was paramount and might require more troops than initially planned.

On the plus side, war in Iraq has denied al Qaeda a potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction and discouraged state sponsors of terrorism from continuing to support it," the report said.

"On the minus side, war in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al Qaeda's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operating capability," it said.

"The immediate effect of the war may have been to isolate further al Qaeda from any potential state supporters while also swelling its ranks and galvanizing its will."

If their point is that failure to rebuild Iraq will result in a setback in the war on terror, well, we concur. Who doesn't?

The comments to the press are here.

And, the heads-up - if the International Institute for Strategic Studies is authoritative now, they may have been authoritative when they assessed Iraq's WMD capability in September 2002. I have excerpts here.

Comments

[HH]

"Probably," "may have been"... er, okay. The plus side comes across as more certain than the minus side.

[Mithras]

"In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. ... This Strategic Dossier does not attempt to make a case, either way, as to whether Saddam Hussein’s WMD arsenal is a casus belli per se. Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used."

So, the report's conclusion is that the Iraqis were in worse shape now than they were, say, in 1991, but not out of the WMD game. They got it wrong, but they didn't make the mistake of calling for war. Unlike some.

[HH]

The purpose of the cease fire to the Gulf War, of course, was to eliminate them, not merely "retard" them...

[Mithras]

And it seems it worked.

[HH]

Well, not just that, Hussein was supposed to account for having destroyed them, which of course he did not. Just saw a new report on the possibility they were moved to a secret location in Iran.

[IceCold]

Let me get this straight -- irreversibly removing a threat whose future development was uncertain was a mistake? Iraqi scientists were losing their abilities, Iraqi oil was losing its market value? The proven incapacity of the UN to prevent Iraqi WMD activity (see Kay interim report) and the demonstrated unlikelihood of the UN effectively containing Iraq over time (see the 1990s at the UNSC) were a substitute for action? The only element that could be changed about Iraq's POTENTIAL menace was the regime. That was changed.

But the IISS thing about al-Qaeda recruiting is really worth an unforgiving look. The first post nailed the main point: "probably" marginally". Weak weasel words, with no basis other than speculation.

And how reasonable is that speculation? The New York Times ran a pre-war story based on comments by US "counterintelligence" officials (the same ones, presumably, who'd done such a bang-up job in anticipating and countering the al-Qaeda threat in the 1990s), with much the same theme. But the speculation seems extremely specious to me, as it ignores the nature and evolution of al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda was born of islamist triumphalism, based on the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. It is not likely to be energized by a US success (newsflash: removing Saddam's regime was the main objective, and was accomplished). By al-Qaeda's own account, it was energized by US defeats, or perceived defeats -- Vietnam, Lebanon 1983, Mogadishu 1993 especially.

OBL himself famously opined that people will generally follow the strong horse, given the choice. I'd say he's right, especially in the Arab world. Who's the strong horse? More to the point, within the logical framework of the IISS per al-Qaeda recruiting, does taking down the Iraqi regime DIMINISH US standing as the strong horse? Obviously not.

Having said that, of course it seems likely that the Iraq operation will lead to increased "walk-on" recruiting, at least for a time. But such volunteers are much more likely to be of the Richard Reid than the Mohammed Atta variety. Cannon-fodder. Of which al-Qaeda already has more than enough.

Another question for the IISS and the officials who have taken the same line: if the first Gulf war and Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia -- all US interventions on behalf of Muslims -- were contemporaneous with al-Qaeda's growth in the 1990s, how would the Iraq invasion "worsen" anything? Of course it won't. Al-Qaeda's ideology and the mentality it exploits are not rational, and attempting to appease or manipulate them are foolish.

The malevolence of islamists and potential recruits -- based largely on ignorance -- is a given in the short run. Thus what matters is limiting the capacity of these people by denying them sanctuary, logistical support, and weaponry.

Strategically, there's not even a close call between the certain benefits of taking down the Iraqi regime -- removal of global terrorists' most likely and best potential state WMD source, intimidation of other potential state sponsors/abettors, boost to our intelligence capacity in the Arab world -- and the very uncertain downside of temporarily boosting recruitment, "probably" of low-quality malcontents.

[Jane Finch]

As a lefty, I have no problem with the conclusion that the invasion has swelled al-qaeda membership. However, what's withthe WMD canard..hell, with my staple gun and some uranium, *I* could be a "potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction" too.

[TM]

Jane, you mean you are not?

[Marcel Perez]

No mystery to the revelation that Al Quaida and other terror groups have found reinvigoration in their cause by the swelling increase in membership and emboldened attacks.

There aren't too many "other games in town" for the restless, unemployed young men/women of that part of the world. Most,fueled by the myopic fanaticism of the call for liberation from the "western devil", seem willing to forfeit their lives with little consideration for their own futures. This fanaticsm has even invaded the ranks of educated young people who would seem to have better prospects in life. That's what makes these people so dangerous; a committment to a cause greater than the one to self preservation.. They are are even more enigmatic than the Kamikaze pilots of WWII who were at least uniformed soldiers in arms. There is almost never an advanced warning of the next bombing or assasination, or who will be the next victims. A bomb is a pretty indiscriminant instrument that kills the innocent along with the target. Frighteningly, the innocent are often [the] target.

A relatively small number of resourceful people dedicated to a terror cause with access to explosives are more than an inconvenience. Wherever there are people who place a higher value on human life, the fear of terrorist acts keeps them on constant alert. Terrorism has become a major threat and concern to all governments of the world. We have witnessed active recruitment of supporters in all corners of the world,even in the U.S. The threat is a global one that seems to have spread like an uncontroled cancer; and there is no cure in sight.