From the article: " Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proclaimed on Friday that Al-Qaeda had been routed in Baghdad thanks to a security plan launched a year ago, and would soon be defeated throughout the country."
Though it seems the surge in Iraq has had an affect on the amount of attacks and casualties in Iraq since its inception (attacks down 62 percent since last June in all of Iraq), it is hard for one to say that Al-Qaeda has been "routed" or "defeated" completely. In our studies of the network structure in terrorist groups, especially Al-Qaeda, it cannot be fully known the extent to which the organization exists or doesn't exist. This announcement may signal better success but to infer that the job in Baghdad is complete is very hard to accept.
Greg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This brings up the question of whether it is possible to defeat terrorism at all. And, if so, what constitutes "defeat"? Do terrorists have to be completely wiped out or does a state simply have to maintain adequate security?
It can be argued that the U.S. has defeated Islamist terrorism for the last seven years because we haven't been attacked since 9-11. The Iraqis will have to determine their own definitions of victory and success over these terrorists. I do agree with you that to completely defeat Islamist terrorism is impossible at this point.
I recently attended Adam Fife's lecture on the "Al-Queda in Iraq". It is true that the word 'defeat' has been used ambiguously by Nuri al-Maliki, but based on this article and Fife's lecture, I do believe that there is a substantial amount of truth in his statement. I do not think that he is trying to say that the security forces have uprooted Al-Qaeda from the Iraqi soil, but despite the sporadic causalities there is evidence to show that the "draining the swamp" process in Baghdad is complete.
Ever since General Petraeus took charge of the country, the number of Al-Qaeda bases throughout Iraq have gone down dramatically. According to Fife, this was achieved by first identifying the Al-Qaeda's sympathizers and supports and slowly winning them over with increased personal contact. Without support from the constituent public, Al-Qaeda has been throughly destroyed.
I think Swati is right in that al-Maliki's focus is upon the removal of Al-Qaeda in Baghdad at the moment. Undoubtedly that must give this struggling state a lot of hope. Of course Baghdad is just one town in a very large country so that may not mean much. Especially because Al-Qaeda might have found it advantageous not to base themselves in Baghdad but rather surrounding areas.
I think the thing I am most interested in is the repercussions of such a statement by al-Maliki. I really wonder how three different parties will respond to such a statement: (1) the terrorists (2) the domestic Iraqi public (3) the international community. This certainly could inspire the terrorists to simply try harder, lull the domestic Iraqi public into a false sense of security, and yield a sense of cynicism from the international community. Of course that is probably the worst case scenarios and I'd imagine things will turn out a little bit better than that. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
The American and Iraqi governments seem to have a pattern of pre-maturely declaring their problems solved. Or simply ignoring them. George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech comes to mind. I certainly think it is too early to declare the Al-Qaeda branch in Baghdad dead. Terrorist have a way of regrouping and adjusting methods to accomplish their goals...maybe they are gone, but I think that is something for later generations to decide, not the current Iraqi government.
Perhaps the realist in me (or pessimist, if you want to call it that) finds it difficult for anyone to say that terrorism will be eradicated any time soon. I think that as long as America and the West is viewed as the root of all evil, terrorist organizations will continue to spring up, even if others are supposedly defeated, as with the claim with Al-Qaeda being defeated in Baghdad.
But this does not mean that we (the international community) should not be actively fighting against terrorism. Not only does the US and international community have to fight the terrorists physically, they have to fight for the hearts and minds of those who believe the West is evil-- those who are terrorist sympathizers. As we can see from Iraq, this has proven to be a very difficult task, but a task that can be accomplished, if the international community is willing to make sacrifices. And I firmly believe that the long, hard fight against terrorism is completely necessary.
Post a Comment