I hate to say this, but an Iraqi Pinochet is probably better than a fragmented Iraqi Warlord State. Better for us, even better for Iraqis. Chaos is very bloody, and can go on for decades. Under a Pinochet or Stalin, if you toe the Party Line, they mostly leave you alone. A warlord State will allow Al Queda (and Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad and...) a Safe Haven. No guerrilla army can be defeated if they have a Safe Haven to retreat to, regroup, train, recruit. Al Queda already has two Safe Havens, on the Afghan-Pakistan border and in Saudi Arabia, it'd be another defeat for us, to yield them another unreachable hiding place.
I don't think Al Queda has the capability any more, to strike in the U.S. If they could, they would have, after Regime Change in Iraq. Instead, they attacked in Muslim nations. The Bush Administration gets credit for this.
But Al Queda (or copycat groups) will gain back that capability, in time, unless we dry up their sources of money and recruits, and win the PR battle in Muslim nations. Which we have totally failed at, so far. |
