War on Terror Status

All over the news are interviews and articles about various Al Queda defeats - losing ideological support from former adversaries, losing the fight in Iraq (against Sunni, Iraqi govt, and US forces), Zawahiri getting hammered on jihadi websites, and the failure of AQ to launch a successful attack against the US since 9/11. The consensus of terrorism experts - liberal on conservative - is AQ is on the ropes.

And yet, the consensus on the radio at least seems to be the WOT "success" is despite the Bush Administration's various blunders across the board - as opposed to giving credit where credit *may* be due.

Here is a bad NY Post article making the right overall point.

"Title: W vs. Terror: Something's Working"

And isn't that right? It's like watching a sports team and criticizing how bad they are or look and yet they keep winning games.

Here is the diagnosis:

IT'S an article of faith on the left that the Bush administration has done nothing that has enhanced our security - rather, its alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, something clearly has made us safer since 2001. Successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have not increased, as had been widely predicted, but instead dwindled to virtually nothing.

I agree with some of this point. It is an article of faith (as opposed to an article of reason) on the left that Bush can and will do nothing good in the WOT (or on any front). I wouldn't agree that attacks against the US have dwindled to nothing...they have transitioned from surprise attacks against civilian targets to guerrilla style attacks against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have lost a good number of soldiers and many have been maimed by roadside bombs, etc. We've paid a cost. But this was the choice we made after 9/11 - to use our troops to protect our civilians. It's what a decent society does, after all, and the question we should ask ourselves and history will answer - is it worth it?

Others are making the point that jihadists are sowing the seeds of their own destruction - they are beating themselves and we've got nothing to do with it. In fact, I heard someone on the radio say we defeated AQ in October-November 2001 and ever since then, with the Iraq invasion, we helped prop up the jihadists for longer than they ever would have lasted.

One word: ridiculous. Totally ridiculous. The logic that jihadists were ultimately self-defeating has been around for as long as jihadists have been around. That WAS US policy towards jihad up until 9/11. These guys aren't popular with other Muslims, they don't pose a real threat to us, they will ultimately wither and die of their own accord. But facts demonstrate the error of this thinking. First, we assumed the Muslim world, both the street and the jihadists would see things the way we saw them. It turns out: they don't. They saw jihadists acting bold around the world and got either enamored or scared of them. Progressives and minorities moved away from the Mid East to Europe and the US. Anti-US sentiment rose and attacks against the US rose in both number and popularity until 9/11 hit. Finally we decided to hit back and hit back massively...but we did it smart and not indiscriminately.

Point number 2 - If you read the article on Dr. Fadl, one of the major reasons he's turned against Zawahiri (in addition to all the personal fissures) is the US reaction post-9/11. He once warned the US would strike back and destroy AQ and lead to senseless number of jihadi deaths if it were provoked too much. Zawahiri and Bin Laden thought it would provoke a massive US retaliation, thus mobilizing the Muslim world into jihad, OR cause the US to scale back it's presence in the Middle East (side note: this is the conventional wisdom anyway - I actually think it has more to do with emotional expression than rational political action...not unlike the motivation for trying to make a film or something of that nature - an expression of dissatisfaction.)

Either way, the results pre and post Iraq have been a public relations disaster for Al Queda, whose mask has been removed in the Muslim world as a violent, nihilistic organization...as opposed to the heroic, tough-guy, stand up the the US and thuggist dictators of the Middle East image they were cultivating. I suppose, like anything else, it's tough to find good personal.

Bush-haters will never give him any credit, and ask the rest of us to engage in candid criticism of the policies - which we do. They should be equally willing to engage in discussion about how his policies may have positive (as well as negative) blowback.