THE WAR IN CONTEXT:: Iraq, the War on Terrorism, and the Middle East Conflict

Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives

The myth of AQI
By Andrew Tilghman, Washington Monthly, October, 2007

This scenario [in Iraq] has become common. After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation -- raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites -- might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)

By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president's rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI's presence. Politicians of both parties point to such figures when forming their positions on the war. All of the top three Democratic presidential candidates have argued for keeping some American forces in Iraq or the region, citing among other reasons the continued threat from al-Qaeda.

But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda's presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.

Having been led astray by flawed prewar intelligence about WMDs, official Washington wants to believe it takes a more skeptical view of the administration's information now. Yet Beltway insiders seem to be making almost precisely the same mistakes in sizing up al-Qaeda in Iraq. [complete article]

Comment -- The tendency to overstate the size of the al Qaeda threat in Iraq mirrors an exaggerated view of the threat from global terrorism. The simple fact that we can speak of "global" terrorism or jihadist terrorism as though these were phenomena vast in breadth and depth, reflects the extent to which distortions have become deeply embedded in our language and perceptions. Why is it that we should be more concerned (or even as concerned) about terrorism than we should be about international crime, corruption in government, the multiplicity of ways in which corporate interests undermine and threaten the functioning of democracy, the loss of endangered cultures, and the threat to life itself posed by an unfolding global environmental catastrophe?

Fearmongering Islamophobes such as Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes claim that World War IV has already begun and that Islamists pose a greater threat to the West than did either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Pipes says that:

If Islamists constitute 10 percent to 15 percent of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 million to 200 million persons, or a far greater total than all the fascists and communists, combined, who ever lived.

One wonders, if he perceives the enemy constituted in such a large body of people, how does he imagine it can be neutralized? Genocide, internment, massive repression, or a combination of all possible means?

The alerts from the Islamophobes sound like hysteria boiling up inside febrile brains, but I sense they come from a different source. The clue comes from the fact that the alarmists, by and large, exhibit an unusual calmness. How could someone be genuinely alarmed yet maintain the smug confidence of a man such as Benjamin Netanyahu ("It's 1938 and Iran is Germany")? Those ringing the alarm bells that are meant to alert us to the possible demise of the West, exude their calm confidence for two reasons. They neither believe what they say nor doubt that it will provoke sufficient fear for it to be widely accepted as truth. They have the confidence of accomplished liars.

As for the William F. Buckleys out there who would argue that I am minimizing or dismissing the risk posed by the possibility of nuclear terrorism, I would simply say, nuclear weapons in and of themselves pose an unacceptable risk to the world. The measures through which nuclear terrorism can be prevented, should be pursued, but ultimately the only way of eliminating the nuclear threat from terrorists or anyone else will be through global nuclear disarmament -- a goal much more practical and realistic than the goal of eradicating terrorism.