“If we don’t fight them in Iraq, the terrorists will bring the fight to us!” And how is that worse?

At the core of the current Bush administration logic for open-ended engagement in Iraq is the argument that this is where we are fighting the “War on Terror” so we don’t have to fight it here. His Republican allies say the same thing – that Al Qaeda has chosen Iraq as their “central front” in their battle against us.

Putting aside questions of what we will actually have to do about Iraq (which is probably something completely different than either “side” is saying today), focus for a moment on this question of fighting terrorists “here or there”. Is the preference really as obvious as the Republicans say it is?

In Iraq we have very limited ability to recognize a terrorist. Any ordinary Iraqi could be a suicide bomber on the way to their target and still blend in with the rest of the population. For a foreign terrorist to blend into our society is at least a bit more difficult.

Most terrorist tactics take significant preparation. This is obviously not a limitation in Iraq where suspicious activities can move forward largely un-checked because it is done amongst a sympathetic or at least intimidated populace. That is not the case here. We have already seen several instances in which home-grown terrorist plots have been detected because of the suspicions raised among loyal and concerned citizens. We were caught off-guard by 9-11, but hopefully we have learned a great deal since then. If not we would do better to concentrate on that issue rather than on Iraq.

Iraq is a terrorist’s ideal setting – confusion, a seemingly unending supply of explosives, mixed loyalties, easy disguise and abundant local support or acquiescence. The foreign military trying to battle the terrorist doesn’t know the language or have the trust of the locals. They stand out as obvious American targets and so they can be picked off a few at a time. The terrorist’s enemies are unable to do under-cover work or to infiltrate. The elected government that we are supporting could theoretically remedy many of these limitations but is far from reliable at doing so since it simply mirrors the ethnic and sect divisions of the society.

Contrast this with a terrorist working in the US. The vast majority of our population and even of our Muslim population is not at all sympathetic to the terrorist’s aims. Armed with camera cell phones they can be quite vigilant. Most trust their police and government enough to report suspicious activity and can do so without fear of reprisals. The domestic police and intelligence agencies can certainly do under-cover work and infiltrate networks or organizations. We even have the checks and balances of courts to make sure that we don’t over-step in terms of our own freedoms (if we choose to use them). I’m not saying that we are completely safe from domestic terrorist attacks. No country is without risk, but pulling off an attack is far more difficult for the perpetrators in a stable and free society.

Considering all of this, it is no surprise that Al Qaeda would choose Iraq as its focus. They have far more capability there then they could have here. Besides – why would we think that terrorists are content to fight only on one front anyway? There are no rules for these people.

Compare the cost of a fight here or there. We spend billions of dollars every month to prosecute the war in Iraq. I’m sure we won’t be able to lower that amount any time soon, but imagine what even a few months of that sort of spending could do in terms of domestic security enhancement. Imagine what we could be doing to develop alternative fuels for energy independence. This is why Bin Laden is ecstatic about seeing his enemy pinned down in a war of attrition in Iraq.

Of course the argument also goes that Iraq as a failed state will become a Taliban-like haven allowing terrorists to have a base from which to launch attacks. It isn’t logical to expect that Al Qaeda simply takes over Iraq when we leave. The majority Shiites and the Kurds certainly have no interest in letting that happen. Even the Sunni insurgents won’t want foreign domination and we are already seeing signs of the unraveling of their marriage of convenience. Al Qaeda has also over-played its hand and has built deep animosity because of its indiscriminate killing of civilians. No one in Iraq could be unaware of what these radicals are really about. Now, during a period of instability and civil war – the terrorists will certainly have a place to function – but probably not one well suited to long-distance attacks.

Also, it isn’t as if Al Qaeda doesn’t have bases already. Pakistan is really more of a worry than Iraq in that regard and there is always Somalia or Sudan etc.

The argument will be made that our “defeat” in Iraq will embolden terrorists. The problem with that logic is that they seem to have no boldness limitations now and the regular taste of American blood is their energy drink. Having the regular option of a martyr’s death is also invigorating for their movement. Undoubtedly our enemies will claim “victory” if we leave, but they do that now. Each American killed is the only kind of victory that can be claimed in asymmetric warfare.

We need to define victory for us in terms of living prosperously in our free society and doing a good job of domestic security without discarding the civil liberties that we cherish. We don’t have that balance quite right yet, but that is what victory must mean – not whether “democracy springs up on the banks of the Euphrates” or even whether the poor people of Iraq are able to stop killing each other. Our enemies have a vision for civilization that is diametrically opposed to ours in terms of religious freedom, women’s equality, art and music and other broad individual freedoms. Our civilization isn’t perfect by any means, but it is certainly preferable to their vision.

In reality, radical Islam has little hope of imposing their vision outside of the moslem world, but if we let fear drive too many of our decisions they will have accomplished more than they deserve. Our victory must be defined as the ability to courageously continue the path of our civilization and not let it be compromised in the face of these attacks. That means bringing accused people to trial. That means honoring treaties. That means maintaining standards of decency and openness.

If we really had the “there" or "here” options I think I would prefer “here” where we at least have home-court advantage. In reality our choice is between “there and here” or “just here”. That is even easier to decide.