Progressive World Review

Could there be anything more ridiculous than Fred Hiatt’s editorial in The Washington Post today?  It’s Hiatt’s contention that the recent airstrikes in Somalia that killed a top ranking al-Qaeda leader was misguided because of the civilian casualties involved which ultimately, will just create more recruitment opportunities for the terrorists,

TOMAHAWK MISSILES fired by a U.S. Navy ship demolished a house in central Somalia on Thursday and killed a vicious militia leader and al-Qaeda operative. It was a victory for the Bush administration’s counterterrorism operations in Africa — and a demonstration of the limits of a strategy based almost entirely on “over the horizon” military strikes.
…
But Thursday’s U.S. operation had a distinct downside: At least two dozen other people were killed in the attack, some of them apparently civilians. Al-Shabab responded defiantly, and Somalia-watchers said new leaders for the militia and al-Qaeda will quickly come forward, while fresh recruits may be gained through a backlash against the American intervention. The attack was the fifth U.S. airstrike in Somalia aimed at individuals with al-Qaeda ties since the beginning of 2007. While at least one other operative was killed, some of the attacks appear to have missed their targets while injuring civilians.

I am the first person to agree with the notion that indiscriminately killing civilians is not only morally wrong but completely counter-productive as well.  I have little doubt that the net effect of such airstrikes will be negative.  But where Hiatt goes off the beam is in his alternate strategy,

Somalia is a cautionary example for those who, like Barack Obama, favor rapidly withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and managing any threat from al-Qaeda with an “over the horizon” strike force. Such forces indeed have the ability to target and kill leaders. They do nothing, however, to change the conditions under which al-Qaeda finds refuge and recruits. As Gen. David H. Petraeus is demonstrating in Iraq, successful counterterrorism requires providing security for the civilian population, economic reconstruction and the brokering of political accords — in other words, nation-building. That’s as true in Somalia as it is in Iraq. (emphasis added)

So Hiatt is holding up the occupation of Iraq as a shining example of how to go about conducting these operations.  Apparently he’s forgotten that al-Qaeda didn’t even exist in Iraq until we invaded and killed hundreds-of-thousands of its citizens.  “[P]roviding security for the civilian population?”  How, by killing them?  It is simply incomprehensible how anyone could present the occupation of Iraq as evidence for the best way of eliminating terrorism.  However one might feel about the need or wisdom of taking out Saddam Hussein, there is simply no disputing that terrorism flourishes in Iraq because of our occupation rather than the other way around.  It’s bad enough when you can’t learn from your mistakes, and the war that Hiatt has been championing from the beginning was, in the opinion of most Americans, a mistake, but to present it as an example for future actions is completely delusional.

–Paul Wilden

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.