What "Everyone Knows" Osama Wants...

Peter Kaplan - pundit, counter-terror expert and a man who once interviewed Osama binLaden - has an op-ed in the NY Times today in which he repeats the conventional wisdom. So conventional that no mainstream pundit or politician of any stripe or hue has tried seriously to challenge it.

A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Qaeda’s most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. “Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land,” he wrote. “Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing.” Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.

And there is no riper spot than the Sunni-majority areas of central and western Iraq.

It is this assertion which lies at the heart of Bush's "stay the course" policy on Iraq and the heart of all allegations that those who would withdraw U.S. troops from the occupation "before we've beaten Al Qaida" are enablers and co-conspirators of the terrorists. As long as the Democrat leadership leave that assertion as unchallenged "fact", they will still be open to that charge if they continue to advocate a phased withdrawal.

But I just don't buy the conventional wisdom on this one. It has the feel, to me, of what "everyone knows" when no-one actually knows anything of the sort.

I just don't believe the "Al-Qaida would get a base in Iraq if the U.S. left" thing. The Shiites and Kurds aren't going to let A-Q have real estate on their turf, and it is far from clear that the Sunnis would be any happier about it. The occupation has created a situation where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but I just don't see that lasting if the occupation as a casus Belli was removed. Indeed, evidence from various sources, including tribal fighting against A-Q and the reactions of Sunnis during Col. McMasters project in Tal Afar suggest strongly that A-Q would get its clock cleaned in Sunni areas too.

In any case, the prospect of A-Q fighting fellow Moslems for control has, as 5th generational warfare goes, far more in favor of it that their fighting Americans. Any "paper tiger" spin could be very swiftly neutralized by such.

Some will respond that a base of operations in Iraq is a stated A-Q aim and we should take each of their pronouncements seriously. I am sure it is. I personally aim to prove the moon is made out of green cheese. I've read that A-Q said they have suitcase nukes and that they were going to explode one in the U.S. in September. I must have missed the mushroom cloud on FoxNews. I've heard from a prominent expert that Iran was going to explode a nuclear test last year - and again I must have missed it.

The A-Q leaders come from a culture where haggling is the norm, not poker. You always begin at the most outrageous maximum and if unchallenged you stick with that maximum. I believe what they can do exactly what they say they can as much as I ever believed Saddam's spokesman, Baghdad Bob. Mr Kaplan, obviously, is more trusting of the words of the greatest monsters of the age...

I'm not the only one who doubts what "everyone knows" about what Al Qaida would gain from an end to the occupation of Iraq. Spencer Ackerman sees the crucial difference as being between what Osama wants and what Osama might actually get - and follows pretty much the same chain of argument as I do from there.