Iraq is a PRopaganda victory for al Qaeda

Yesterday I explored the idea that Iraq is at the point of “Tet redux“—a propaganda victory for the enemy, because whatever the situation on the ground—and there are relatively positive views, especially from the soldiers—the war has relentlessly been declared a failure (and a misadventure) by the media; the people spoke during the election (though it’s unclear exactly what they said); and, at the same time, our president lopped off the head of his war manager and decided to look at Iraq with “fresh eyes” (if you consider his father’s aging-and-struggling-to-remain-relevant pals “fresh.” I consider them impudent, arrogant, and self-interested: particularly about their legacy, which has taken a beating at the hands of the neocons). Behind the scenes, this has the makings of a Shakespearean drama. (Too bad Bob Woodward alienated himself from the administration; this story will one day make for really juicy reading.)

Meanwhile, the rest of us are left dealing with reality. And any way you slice that, whether it was handed to them or they grabbed it—this looks like a propaganda victory for al Qaeda (about which it is gloating, with relish).

I accept the notion of PR and propaganda victories—(in a democracy with a free press and freedom of speech, PR and propaganda are the same thing). To simplify things, I will call them PRopaganda (TM) victories: they’re real, and they do damage (but not by themselves: the most damaging ones are those that fall on fertile ground—when perceptions are already shaky, a propaganda victory for one side can tip the scales, for a while).

Yesterday I reached the conclusion that the American people hadn’t yet bought into the PRopaganda victory idea that al Qaeda has defeated us in Iraq. Now, Bill Roggio asks the question we need to address: will the PRopaganda victory be turned into a military defeat for the United States and thus a military victory for al Qaeda?

Over the summer, U.S. intelligence uncovered a 66 page document that explained al-Qaeda strategy to manipulate Western elections. The document, which was published on the web in a private al-Qaeda forum, has yet to be declassified.

To influence the American elections, the U.S. mainland didn’t need to be hit. The schwerpunkt of American public opinion was in Iraq. The terror attacks and sectarian killings were ratcheted up to achieve the desired effect: weaken the resolve of the American public, create a sense of hopelessness and despair in the mission. Now, the question is: will the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress hand al-Qaeda a real military victory to accompany the propaganda victory by prematurely withdrawing from Iraq before the security has stabilized?

Those seem to be the stakes.

John Hinderaker, for one, expects the worst from Poppy’s Pals.

As far as I can see, the “realists” haven’t had a new idea in thirty years. What does Israel have to do with the fact that Shia and Sunni Muslims want to tear each other to pieces? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I’ll say it again: the idea that pressuring Israel to compromise its security will somehow, magically, solve the Iraqis’ problems is delusional. Maybe Baker et al., know something I don’t, but the idea that Iran and Syria will cooperate to bring peace to that region appears equally far-fetched.

So, under the Baker Commission’s recommendations, what will become of the 12 million Iraqis who voted for freedom and for a normal life? President Bush has said more times than I can count, in speeches spanning the last four years, that all people want to be free, and that freedom is God’s gift to all mankind. If he doesn’t believe that, then what does he believe?

If the Iraqis are to be sold out, at least let them be sold out by the Democrats. No one expected anything better from them.

PAUL adds: If the reported contours of this deal (and President Bush’s receptiveness to it) are correct, at least I now understand why the administration waited until after the election to embrace it. If he had changed course in this fashion earlier, no one would (with the possible exception of Baker himeself) have voted for Republicans.