Dueling Perspectives on the "Insurgency"

James Taranto over at the WSJ makes an interesting observation. The NYT seems more than eager to naively credit the claims of the numerous radical groups that have popped up in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam. This reinforces the paper's view, based in Richard Clarke's less than objective analysis, that American intervention in Iraq, coupled with its failure to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan, has caused the Islamist movement to metastasize into forms too numerous to be contained and has ensured its ultimate victory. In the face of this proliferating range of antagonists the only reasonable course would be surrender and withdrawal. Further engagement with the Arab world would only make the situation worse.

Taranto has a different view. He compares these groups and their extreme claims to the proliferation of ephemeral internet companies during the 90's tech bubble. So long as companies could attract investment by making extreme claims they flourished, but once the money sources dried up, they vanished. From his perspective these are simply opportunistic groups trying to cash in on the flow of money into Iraq to support anti-American activities. When that money flow dries up, they will disappear. Their existence only highlights the importance of identifying and interdicting sources of investment in Islamic radicalism.

The NYT piece is here. Read Taranto's piece here.