The term "flypaper strategy" to describe the war in Iraq was originated by David Warren, a Canadian essayist, back in July of 2003. In his essay on the invasion of Iraq Mr. Warren had this to say.
They [various "experts" on regional security] notice that the U.S. forces in Iraq have become a new magnet for regional terrorist activity. They assume this demonstrates the foolishness of President Bush's decision to invade.
It more likely demonstrates the opposite. While engaged in the very difficult business of building a democracy in Iraq -- the first democracy should it succeed in the entire history of the Arabs -- President Bush has also quite consciously to my information created a new playground for the enemy away from Israel and even farther away from the United States itself. By the very act of proving this lower ground he drains terrorist resources from other swamps.
This is the meaning of Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt from the Roosevelt Room on Wednesday when he was quizzed about the "growing threat to U.S. forces" on the ground in Iraq. It should have been obvious that no U.S. President actually relishes having his soldiers take casualties. What the media and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper.
This all comes by way of Ace of Spades HQ who linked to this post by Michael McNeil, in which Mr. McNeil relates this bit of news from the BBC:
A BBC interviewee, Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, put it thusly:
The war in Iraq has minimized the threat to Europe because everyone who's Jihad-inclined wants to go fight over there. So even though some of these… the guys suspected of involvement in the train bombings have reportedly gone over to lodge themselves in Iraq. So there are these radicals sort of coming out of Europe and actually going to a different theater altogether.
I bring this up for two reasons. First, a commenter left a message here that began "Tom, Iraq is an unqualified disaster and, far from making us safer, its made us decidedly less secure." When I asked for some evidence that might support this, he responded by pointing out a New York Times article about Iraq becoming the new terrorist training ground. You can find our exchange, which was quite civil to the point of being cordial, here. As you might expect I continue to disagree with the commenter's statement. The fact that terrorists may be traveling to Iraq to learn how better to terrorize civilians doesn't lead me to conclude we are less secure.
Second are the recent remarks by Ted Kennedy at the Senate Armed Services Committee testimony of Donald Rumsfeld.
TED KENNEDY: Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, we are in serious trouble in Iraq, and this war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, and we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying, and there really is no end in sight. Our troops deserve better, Mr Secretary, I think the American people deserve better. They deserve competency, and they deserve the facts. In baseball it's three strikes and you're out. What is it for the Secretary of Defence?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, that is quite a statement. First, let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire, and that there's no end in sight. The suggestion by you that people – me or others – are painting a rosy picture is false. I think that the comments you made are certainly yours to make, and I don't agree with them.
TED KENNEDY: Well, my time has just expired, but Mr Secretary, I'm talking about the misjudgements and the mistakes that have been made, the series which I've mentioned. Those are on your watch. Isn't it time for you to resign?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I have offered my resignation to the President twice, and he's decided that he would prefer that he not accept it. And that's his call.
Remarks like those of Mr. Kennedy and the way they are portrayed in the news are in my view aid and comfort to the enemy. The news article from which the exchange was taken was about poll numbers that indicate declining support for the war in Iraq. The only way the United States can lose in Iraq is by quiting. The only reason for the United States to quit would be overwhelming public opinion against continuing the fight.
For Mr. Kennedy and the press that supports him, it's just politics. They hope for more Democratic seats in houses in Washington, so they oppose the President. They try to make the case that the Administration is on the wrong track, whether by incompetence, duplicity, or a combination. They try to make the case that we're losing. But the reality is far different. We are winning the fight. We are more secure. But in trying to make a case that we are not winning, that public opinion is turning against fighting the war to its finish, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Hagel and their like encourage the enemy to continue their attacks.
Comments