Opponents of the war in Iraq may opine that it has no relation to the war on terror, and that our retreat from Iraq will even help us in the war on terror.

Their views may be honorable, but our enemies have declared Iraq to be the decisive battlefield. That makes it so. ~Michael Novak

So we have granted to the jihadis the power to determine what is and is not true about this war?  That is surely a strange thing–and it uses jihadi statements in a way that war supporters abhorred in war opponents when we have cited Bin Laden’s statements to explain the proximate causes of the current conflict.  It has been close to being virtually a thought crime to suggest that disentangling ourselves from the Near East would likely reduce the threat of jihadi terrorism by depriving it of popular causes that it could exploit.  It is now the sum of wisdom to agree with Bin Laden’s depiction of the war in toto because it happens to serve the turn of people who supported the invasion of Iraq long before Bin Laden ever said one word about it.  This is really something of a despicable ruse, another way of tricking the public to support something that is not in the national interest and which positively harms the war against Al Qaeda everywhere else in the world.  It is, alas, what we have come to expect from Mr. Novak and his confreres.    

But how is it the “decisive” battlefield?  What will be decided?  The word “decisive” has a specific meaning here that does not seem to match up to the realities of the Iraq war.  Whether America or the jihadis “win” in Iraq, neither will thereby be guaranteed to win the entire war, nor does he who “loses” it lose the entire war.  If it were the “decisive” battlefield, this would have to be the turning point, the Stalingrad of the whole shooting match, after which our total defeat becomes inevitable if we “lose” and after which our total victory becomes inevitable if they “lose.”  There are, of course, far more than two sides currently fighting in Iraq–at my last count, there were at least five, not including American forces (they are Sadr’s death squads; the Iraqi government; Al Qaeda; Sunni insurgents; ex-Baathists), some of which cooperate against the others, some of which do not.  If the Iraqi government + Sadr start to prevail, as seems more likely, Bin Laden can talk about how vital Iraq is to his cause all he likes–it will avail him nothing.