U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified on the Hill yesterday, and while most media accounts seem to center around his comment that Al Qaida has grown in strength, there is no comparative term in his quotation to note when Al Qaida has increased with comparison to what.  This is the quote that has many press outlets sounding the alarm.

“We know that al Qaeda has re-established itself … on the western border of Pakistan where they are training new recruits,” he said. “They have established linkages now in North Africa. Al Qaeda has actually expanded, I would say, its organization and its capabilities.” (source)

Gates is correct.  We do know this has happened and we’ve known this has happened or is happening for some time now.  However, Gates does not say whether the terror network is at pre-9/11 levels or not though it’s clear the group is not at that level.  The group has morphed a bit into more of an ideology with localized cells, though this is also how Al Qaida operated since its inception finalized in 1996.

On Iraq:

“If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda almost certainly would use Anbar province as another base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against the United States,” Mr. Gates told the committee.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi contends the U.S. military needs to fight Al Qaida, a measure I certainly agree with, yet she wants full withdrawal from Iraq.

This is what I continue to simply not get.  I fully understand the apprehension regarding the war in Iraq, seeing as how it hasn’t exactly gone as well as one would like to say it kindly, but if the goal of the GWOT is to fight back Al Qaida and Al Qaida is certainly inside Iraq operating, why would it be the best strategy to withdraw?  Have we not learned the valuable lessons of retreating from Islamists before in Beirut or Somalia?  Apparently not, or there’s just more politics to play.

Going back to the Gates quote that is being run to slam President Bush on the GWOT, where did Gates say Al Qaida has resurged?  Gates stated Pakistan (Waziristan) and North Africa (Maghreb).  He could have added the Horn of Africa prior to the end of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia.

Pakistan is a sovereign nation, just as Algeria and Morrocco are as well.  Both Algeria and Morrocco are battling against Al Qaida and Pakistan is at least doing something to hinder the group.  It is though in Pakistan where Al Qaida has a stronger foothold, not in the Maghreb.  The ‘resurgence’ of Al Qaida in the Maghreb is primarily due to the GSPC declaring allegiance to Al Qaida, but Al Qaida cells still exist in many other nations and have sprung up in Palestine.

What is the alternative to the current policy that would wage war more effective against Al Qaida?  A retreat from Iraq is taken into consideration, but surely Pelosi et al are not in favor of invading Algeria, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.  They don’t even favor any Iranian action, neither do I at this moment, who is the main state-sponsor of terrorism at this point.

It is also a rather close-minded view.  While Al Qaida is the symbol of Islamism, it is not the end-all, be-all of the movement.  President Bush recently stated Al Qaida is enemy number one of the United States, or something to that regard.  He might be right, but the group isn’t the only force standing in opposition to the non-Islamic world.  Shia groups such as Hezbollah pose just as much of a threat and they continue the ideology that teaches hate, though it differs slightly from the Sunni Islamist ideology.

In a perfect world, what would happen if Al Qaida ceased to exist tomorrow?  A magical weapon takes out every single Al Qaida member.  Would President Bush or any Bush opposition declare an immediate victory?  Both probably would, but it it would be a fallacy of monumental proportions.  Just as we saw with the reaction to a dozen silly cartoons and with a show regarding a Mickey Mouse clone, it’s the culture that spreads the ideology that is the threat.  Sure, the immediate threat is a jihadi strapping a bomb to his or her waist, but there will always be a jihadi if the ideology continues to exist.

You cannot eradicate that ideology through bombs or bullets, however you can eliminate a jihadi one by one with military firepower.  There needs to be a joint strategy to defeat the enemy, not just propaganda or not just military force.  It strikes me that if Pelosi and her counterparts had their way, the only strategy would be of propaganda value, but what happens to the jihadis who are already indoctrinated?