That is the question. To answer it, let’s imagine that “we” are the commander of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I know this might be difficult, but in order to defeat the enemy we must think like the enemy:

First off, after the US surge and enlisting local Sunni’s to fight against Al Qaeda, “our” group is not doing so hot. Essentially the US turned the tables on “us” and got Sunni and Shiite on the same team, a historical improbability. So “we” would hide out and wait until the Sunni and Shiite start having disagreements and friction. Al Qaeda took this very step because the surge worked. In the meantime, “we” start following US news and try to figure out their next move. Watching TV in our hiding place “we” stumble across a candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, advocates a quick withdrawal, and does not believe that the surge is working.

And praise be to Allah! Obama actually wins. In addition to bringing America change, he brought Al Qaeda’s strategy change. Before, if Al Qaeda would get out of control, the Bush administration would get tougher: sending more troops, attacking insurgent strongholds, and training more Iraqi soldiers/police. With Obama, the more pressure that Al Qaeda puts on America, the louder the Democrats’ call for withdrawal. So what do “we” do? Come out of hiding and start causing trouble. The more trouble, the faster Obama will withdraw. So far, Obama has pledged to withdraw the majority of troops by August 2010. So “we” get back to the proven strategy of attacking Shiites in order to create a backlash against Sunnis and start a full-blown civil war. (That concludes this thought-experiment.)

Well… that is exactly what has been happening. Just today, two car bombs ripped through a Shiite neighborhood killing 41. Last Friday, 60 people were killed in bombings outside a Shiite shrine. Last Thursday, 78 people were killed in bombings of a humanitarian aid distribution area and a crowded restaurant… and the list goes on. All of these were blamed on “Sunni insurgents” and could have been Al Qaeda affiliated or not. The distinction does not matter to Al Qaeda because their goal is to divide Iraq into two or more camps: Sunni and Shiite. Of course, these attacks come on the heels of the withdrawal of thousands of “surge” troops and promises to reduce forces by August 2010. With Obama as president, the worst case scenario for Al Qaeda: hide out until the withdrawal date and then start wreaking havoc. Best case scenario for Al Qaeda: wreak havoc now and accelerate US withdrawal. They are counting on the Weak President to get frightened at the sight of explosions and beheadings.

The problem is that we have not only told the terrorists and insurgents that we are leaving Iraq, we told them when and how many troops we may leave behind as a residual force (50K or less). While it is a relief that Obama has not pulled out troops at the breakneck pace he promised during the campaign and his withdrawal is more orderly, the reality is that Al Qaeda is paying attention and is adjusting its own strategy accordingly. The question should not be: how do we go about withdrawing effectively? The question should be: how do we make sure that Al Qaeda is fully defeated? The former question does not take into account the consequences of leaving Al Qaeda intact, while the latter question implies not only an eventual withdrawal but it takes into account the fact that we might have to go back to Iraq if Al Qaeda takes over. In other words, the first question implies artificial timetables (politics-based) and the second question sets real timetables. Timetables should not be set by politics in Washington but rather by conditions in Iraq. Artificial timetables only give the enemy an edge in this fight… interestingly, some say that it’s what gave the Democrats an edge in the last couple of elections.

There’s one timetable that I agree with though: January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2013. Let’s see if it holds.

-AG