Not a Strong Horse Move
We, like others, left the subject of Iraq for a while – but the double female suicide bombings this weekend are an interesting counterpoint to American/coalition/Iraqi progress in securing the country.
We, like others, left the subject of Iraq for a while – but the double female suicide bombings this weekend are an interesting counterpoint to American/coalition/Iraqi progress in securing the country.
Osama Bin Laden said that given a choice between a strong horse and a weak horse, people would naturally choose the strong horse. He was, of course, right. And he assumed that he and the Saudi-financed-Sunni al Qaeda were the strong horse (the corollary being the Iranian-backed-Shiite militias represented the strong horse on the other side of the ethnic divide) and the U.S./Israel/West were the weak horse.
What isn’t clear is why Americans ever bought into his argument. We always thought we were the strong horse, and it appears we have increasing company among Iraqis.
Osama assumed before the Twin Towers fell that Americans wouldn’t fight back. When we threw his forces out of Afghanistan and entered Iraq, he assumed that we would withdraw from the proverbial quagmire (the weak horse move) and leave him to establish his next (strong horse) base. It might have seemed that way even to Americans: security setbacks followed our initial quick march to Baghdad; ugly political bickering ensued at home, with the Senate Majority Leader publicly calling the war “lost”; and Iraqi factions, bolstered by foreign sponsors, killing and taking revenge while the Americans appeared powerless to rein in the violence. But we stayed.
And al Qaeda overplayed its hand with its murderous rampages, enforced religiosity and attempts to overthrow the established tribal order. Destruction (weak horse) was its calling card in Iraq as it had been in Afghanistan. It was the revulsion of the tribes and their leaders that led to the uprising in Anbar and elsewhere, and their alliance with American forces that was coincident with the Surge (strong horse).
Having two women (whether affected with Down Syndrome or not, it isn’t clear) blow themselves up in the course of blowing up other women and children in the marketplace over the weekend is not a strong horse move. The human imperative – the real strong horse – is to protect women and children and to have one’s fighting done by honorable soldiers, not the sort who put bombs on women to murder children.
The strong horse takes the long-term position.
More and more, American troops are understood to be the ones who do not engage in wanton destruction, do not undermine the social structure, and do not force their morals or mores on the local population. More and more, American troops (and their State Department counterparts in the PRTs – Provincial Reconstruction Teams) find themselves welcomed as the ones who respect, build, protect and engage the Iraqi people.
There is a long, long road to go in Iraq. But to the extent that the Iraqi people, regardless of gender/religion/ethnicity/tribe, understand the essential cowardice of terrorist organizations (would that their Palestinian cousins would do the same), they can be expected to back the strong horse. Ours.