The Exchange

• Sen. Obama said: If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.
• Sen. McCain said: I have news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. And that’s why we’re fighting in Iraq, and that’s why we’re succeeding in Iraq.
• Sen. Obama said: I have some news for John McCain, and that is there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

• Sen. Obama said: If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.
• Sen. McCain said: I have news for Senator Obama. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. And that’s why we’re fighting in Iraq, and that’s why we’re succeeding in Iraq.
• Sen. Obama said: I have some news for John McCain, and that is there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.

Important as it is to know that Sen. Obama intends to “secure the American homeland and our interests abroad,” his understanding of al Qaeda and its entry into Iraq – which will impact upon any decision he might make regarding a reduction in American forces there and elsewhere in the region – appears limited.

Al Qaeda has been called a portmanteau, an umbrella, a collection of people, capabilities and operations that support the spread of radical Sunni Islam. It is not a single organization and members don’t carry cards. It goes where it can live and morphs to meet local conditions. It is a vampire, living off weak governments and chaotic conditions.

If there was no al Qaeda in Iraq until 2003, it is because until 2001, Afghanistan under the Taliban provided not only territory for training and hiding, but also a government onto which it could graft itself. When we tossed the Taliban, it needed another host. Pakistani tribal areas were/are pretty good, but with restored Sunni dominance and a symbiotic relationship with the former Ba’athists, Iraq would be much better; badlands vs. a country with banks, passports and diplomatic assets abroad.

This is one, but not the only connection between America’s post-9/11 defense posture and the war in Iraq. It is a crucial one, however, because it requires understanding first that terrorists move and states change, and then understanding that our war is therefore not “against terror” (a dubious proposition) but against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them, when they harbor and support them. It is against the swamp that breeds al Qaeda on the Sunni side and Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ and others taking support from Shiite Iran.

Interestingly, Sen. Obama addressed al Qaeda’s presence in Pakistan earlier this year. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again … If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Would he take American military forces halfway around the world to kill terrorists in the badlands of a country with which we are not at war? He has said he would remove American military forces from a country in which they are engaging al Qaeda directly and successfully, preventing the permanent establishment of a base in the heart of the Middle East. They are, in fact, doing what Sen. Obama proposes by “securing our interests and our homeland” right now.