Related Resources

The United States has been a stabilizing and balancing force in the Middle East for many years. But when we broke up the existing balance of power in the region by toppling Saddam Hussein, we broke the Sunni hammer lock on the population of Iraq and opened the way for Shia resurgence as well as for the extension of Iranian influence and power in Iraq and, most recently through Hizbullah in Lebanon. We exposed fault lines in the Middle East centered in Iraq and hidden by the borders of an artificial state. It was the natural fault line between Sunni and Shia that has existed for centuries, as opposed to the borders drawn by the British for the convenience of its colonial empire.

The fault lines are not about terrorism. What we are witnessing is the clash within the Islamic civilization between the Shia and Sunni interpretations of the Koran, of Islamic history, of tradition and of culture. It is also a clash of power and privilege: the result of years of second-class citizenship for the Shiite plurality in Iraq. Now it is pay back time. And finally, it is a clash of nationalism between Persian and Arab nationalities. . In a broader context, it is also a clash between a radical, intolerant version Islam that seeks a purity of faith that has not existed in centuries, if it ever did, and those who believe in a different more tolerant, more modern Islam.

This is not to say al-Qaeda terrorists have not made use of the disintegration of security and stability in Iraq. They have. They have replaced the training grounds of Afghanistan and Sudan with the live-fire experience of Iraq. They have used Iraq to hone their tactics and develop new ways to cause American casualties. They are learning lessons in tactics and weapons that can be applied elsewhere against other targets, like Saudi Arabia, or Jordan or Egypt. They have capitalized on anti-American anger in the region and in expatriate communities in Europe as an effective recruiting tool. The recent NIE report confirms these suspicions.

When the President says that if we walk away from the problem, Iraq could become an even greater breading ground for international terrorism – he is correct. The President would also be correct if he said the US would lose deterrent power against the terrorists, if we are seen to be “cutting and running” in the President’s terms. In fact, the President has magnified the negative effect of withdrawal by so characterizing it. But even in the absence of withdrawal, the fact that it appears that we have been unsuccessful in achieving our objectives is giving terrorists around the world heart.

What the example of Iraq is doing, thus far is offering encouragement to radical Islamists and other terrorist wanna-bes. Because we have not yet been able to bring the violence under control, meet the challenge of asymmetrical warfare, or defeat the insurgency, we have encouraged the aspirations of other militant groups in the region, like Hizbullah and Hamas.

We will, of course, survive Iraq as our real power is represented by our economy, our technology, our entrepreneurial spirit. And our military will still leave us predominant in the world. But in the process we will have lost a psychological edge.

We may lose an even more important asset than the presumption of our military superiority if people in the world begin to doubt our leadership and our ability to carry out our promises. That is the real risk for America. America’s global image of powerful and rightful leadership is a major asset, , which we cannot afford to squander.

The question we have to ask is where our interests and those of our friends will be most affected. It seems to me that we have two choices: either to find a way to back out of our heavy engagement in Iraq so that we can take on the other, possibly greater challenges in the region, like the Palestinian issue and Iran. Or, we can roll up our sleeves and focus all of our attention on Iraq to accomplish the task the President has set – to build a real democracy there.

If the stakes are as great as the President contends, then it is time to abandon the failed tactics of minimal forces and inadequate investment. These are the questions I hope the administration is asking itself now and the questions we need to be asking ourselves as a nation.