- The Washington Times - Saturday, June 4, 2005

In Iraq, they say, failure is not an option. But it is a possibility. From the start of the intervention, two critical questions have awaited answers: Is there a critical mass of Iraqis willing to fight for freedom rather than submit to tyranny? And can the American military — designed to confront the Soviet Union, a lumbering giant — learn to effectively fight an elusive enemy who plays by no rules and need not win a single battle? All that the enemy has to do is erode our will to fight. Videotapes of beheadings and suicide bombings tend to have that effect on the Western psyche.

More than two years into the war, those who insist Iraq is a hopeless quagmire can point out that, in recent weeks, 130 car bombs have killed more than 600 people.

On the other hand, thousands of freshly trained Iraqi troops have begun hunting insurgents in and around Baghdad. Even in the most restive provinces of the country, Sunni tribesmen have battled the forces of Abu Musab Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. And Zarqawi himself is reportedly wounded.

But leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether we are today inching forward or slipping back. Focus instead on this: Has failure now become an option? What would be the consequence of an American defeat in Iraq?

It surely would mean a bloodbath as the Ba’athist insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists settled scores and demonstrated — as an object lesson for others — the price for collaborating with American infidels.

Iraqi terrorist training camps would no doubt be reopened. Refurbishing Salman Pak, for example, not only would humiliate America but, more practically, could replace skilled combatants lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.

Conceptually, it would now be apparent America’s flight from Beirut after the slaughter of its Marines in 1983, its hasty withdrawal from Somalia 10 years later, its refusal to hold any terrorist nation, dictator or group responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing — were not flukes or mistakes but points in a trend line. It would confirm the belief the West is in decline and a superior force destined to prevail — exactly as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have long predicted.

Al Qaeda, Saddam loyalists, agents of the Iranian mullahs — whichever group or alliance of groups emerged on top in Iraq would build on their success. Before long we could expect an “insurgency” in Kuwait: assassination of a few key figures, some beheadings and suicide bombings. The wave would continue into Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and beyond. Who would stop it? How?

With expanding territory, population and resources, including vast oil wealth, the leaders of the new totalitarian confederation or empire — or caliphate — could manipulate the world’s economy to its benefit and to the detriment of those few nations who might dare obstruct their ascendance.

Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons would soon be theirs. They would want them only for peaceful purposes, of course; and for deterrence. Before long, the dream of both Saddam and bin Laden would be realized. There would be an oil-rich, nuclear-armed new superpower, a true rival to the decadent and divided West. Quietly, it would empower “nonstate actors,” a k a, terrorist groups.

In Europe, radical Islamists would become increasingly demanding. They would find European leaders surprisingly accommodating. Americans, by contrast, would be obstreperous and try to seal their borders better. Such efforts would only delay the inevitable.

Chances are that, eventually, a nuclear weapon or germ bomb would be detonated in some American population center. World leaders would express sympathy. But what could be done? Investigate who had supplied it to whom? Ask the United Nations to impose sanctions? Retaliate against the civilian populations of Baghdad and Tehran?

That war is hell is not news. That the war in Iraq is more hellish than many imagined is obvious. It is legitimate, indeed useful, to criticize the Bush administration’s conduct of the war.

But those who interpret every helicopter crash, bombing or decapitation as proof America’s 21st century enemies can’t be beaten, who urge, or merely imply, we should accept defeat, need to say what they expect after U.S. forces go home.

Will it be anything like the apocalyptic scenario sketched above? If not, why not?

Some people may answer that, after the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, life returned to normal for most Americans. But Ho Chi Min had modest ambitions. He never sought to topple the American colossus; the Viet Cong never tried to massacre Americans on American soil.

This enemy is different. This war is different. This time, America must win. Failure is not an option.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide