Josh Marshall: Townsend's Fatal Dodge

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015511.php

Townsend's Fatal Dodge
07.18.07 -- 9:06AM
By Josh Marshall

Here's a key exchange from White House Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend's press conference yesterday about the new NIE on al Qaeda. We know that intelligence estimates received by the White House prior to the invasion of Iraq warned that the invasion and occupation could give new life to al Qaeda -- a boon for recruitment, fundraising and more. Yesterday, CNN's Ed Henry asked Townsend precisely this question. Weren't you warned about this in advance of the war and haven't those predictions now proven out? Isn't al Qaeda stronger and aren't we more vulnerable because of the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7W0V75e3ro&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftalkingpointsmemo%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F015511%2Ephp

Townsend's answer is that of course al Qaeda will use our attacks on them for propaganda purposes to further grow their movement. But it's silly to argue that we should never attack our enemies just because they'll try to use our attacks against us in this way. It's not a zero sum game, she argues.

Now, Henry didn't have the perfect follow-up ready for this response. But honestly it's not always easy to parry this sort of bamboozlement perfectly in real time. (Believe me, it's not that easy.) But the key point is that Townsend dodges the essential issue. This would be a decent response if people were making it as an argument against our invasion of Afghanistan, because that was after all al Qaeda's base of operation. We were attacking them where they were. So it would be silly or at least a weak argument to say we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan just because al Qaeda would use the attack as a propaganda tool against us. As Townsend's logic suggests, sure they might use it for their media campaign. But that's far outweighed by the benefit of destroying their sanctuary.

But that's the heart of the issue, the one Townsend dodges and which Henry unfortunately didn't press. Iraq wasn't a sanctuary or recruiting or training ground for al Qaeda before we invaded. This has now been as definitively established as proving a negative ever can be. So, contra Townsend, it really is a zero sum game for us since we did nothing to hurt al Qaeda by invading Iraq -- they weren't there and had no prospect of being there. But we did help them almost immeasurably by giving the whole organization a new lease on life for recruitment, fundraising and more. And the rising unpopularity of the United States in the Muslim world because of the invasion has undoubtedly played a large role in preventing Pervez Musharraf from keeping al Qaeda from reestablishing itself in Pakistan.

Townsend sort of begs off this last point by saying that if al Qaeda didn't set up in one country it would set up in other. If not Iraq, then Somalia and if not Somalia then in the Magreb or Southeast Asia or wherever. But what sort of sad sack defeatism is that? If that's the case why are we spending so much time trying to stop them from getting set up in Iraq?

The whole point is stupid.

The simple fact is that the full picture is now clear. The White House was repeatedly warned in advance that attacking Iraq would strengthen al Qaeda. We did and it did. That's where we are now. The White House has no excuse and no answer.