People of
good faith will argue for a long time about the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression and
support for international terrorism, I believe he had to be removed,
and that it was better to do so before international sanctions
had deteriorated to the point that he was able to substantially
re-arm. But either way, now that we are deeply committed, it is
critical that we see the mission through to completion - that
is, the establishment of a stable, representative Iraqi government
that provides for its own security and poses no threat to its
neighbors.
An extraordinary
letter Zawahiri wrote to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi
- intercepted and recently released - makes abundantly clear that
al Qaeda views Iraq as only an initial battle to be won. "The
goal," describes the Journal, "is a fundamentalist
Islamic regime that begins in Iraq, extends into the neighboring
secular nations of the region, assaults Israel and moves on from
there. Just because the U.S. might decide to pull out of Iraq
hardly means that al Qaeda will stop trying to kill Americans."
Fortunately,
thanks to the dogged efforts of U.S. troops and our allies, Zawahiri
is hardly operating from a position of strength. Thought to be
in hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, he complains in the letter
of relentless pursuit, laments the capture of high-level al Qaeda
leaders, and asks Zarqawi to send him $100,000.
Even so,
Zawahiri's fanatical dedication to the destruction of the United
States and the freedom and democracy we represent is shared by
thousands of violent Islamist fundamentalists around the world.
Many have slipped into Iraq to join the insurgency; others - along
with millions of poor and disaffected around the world who are
vulnerable to the attractions of extremism - are surely watching
what happens there.
In the face
of this reality, those who would have us withdraw prematurely
from Iraq face the burden of explaining how such a move would
not play directly into the hands of America's mortal enemies,
who seek not only our defeat but our annihilation. Even pressure
for a strict timetable for withdrawal demoralizes the nascent
Iraqi government and people, and encourages insurgents clinging
to the notion that they can simply wait us out. Terrorists are
only emboldened by their tactical victories; their strikes against
the U.S. in Beirut, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, and the
U.S.S. Cole culminated in the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The consequences
of quitting Iraq short of victory would be cataclysmic. Set aside
the fact that it would almost certainly fall into civil war, with
terrible bloodletting and the creation of significant new terrorist
havens, like Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. As bad
as our defeat in Vietnam was, no one seriously considered the
Viet Cong a direct threat to the American homeland. The terrorists
now fighting our troops in Iraq are different: They would like
nothing better than to move their operations back to the United
States itself. Again, this is not a matter of speculation - it's
already happened.
A terrorist
victory in Iraq would embolden violent political extremists everywhere.
The failure of democracy would extinguish hopes throughout the
region and set back progress around the world. If the American
public loses the stomach for this fight, it will validate the
terrorists' strategy - most famously articulated by Osama bin
Laden, who called us a "weak horse" - and encourage
more attacks.
"You
may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you,"
Leon Trotsky famously observed on the eve of the Russian Revolution.
Terrorists are going to fight us whether we fight them or not.
Better to accommodate them.
