The Flypaper Theory

The Flypaper Theory
or: How I Built A Real-World Lab For Terrorists Out Of Nothing

aka
The US Invasion of Iraq (2003-?)

There was a certain political justification during the "build up" to the invasion. It worked like this: Some opponents to the war would claim that an invasion in Iraq would create the chaos that would allow the breeding grounds for terrorism; and that, in fact, made the addition of Iraq to the War on Terrorism counter productive, because it put terrorists where there were none before.

And then those critics of the critics built up the cynical "flypaper" theory. Andrew Sullivan covers it here, in a post from Sept. 2003:

Some time before the Iraq war, I found myself musing out loud to someone close to the inner circles of the Bush administration. We were talking about the post-war scenario, something that even then was a source of some worry even to gung-ho hawks like myself. ...

And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.

I subsequently aired this theory on my blog, and received incredulous responses. Readers chimed in with objections. Wouldn't that mean essentially using U.S. soldiers as bait? Isn't this too cynical and devious a strategy? Isn't there a limitless supply of jihadists just longing to mix it up with the U.S. in a terrain they know better than we do? What on earth are you talking about?

From NewsBlog:

The so-called flypaper strategy had a certain logic and superficial appeal even if it dripped cynicism. Most Iraqis might be glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein, but they are probably none too thrilled that their country has turned into a vicious battleground between US forces and the jihadists, especially as most of the casualties are Iraqis.

Now a CIA report reveals that US intelligence officials are beginning to have doubts about the flypaper idea.

According to a report in the New York Times, a new classified assessment says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for extremists than Afghanistan was for al-Qaida, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

Even more worrying, intelligence officials told the Times that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other unnamed countries - presumably the US and the UK - would soon have to contend with militants leaving Iraq equipped with considerable experience and training.

In an age of globalisation, the flypaper theory seemed to smack of wishful thinking. Even if the US eventually prevails in Iraq, many of those who have acquired their terrorist skills in the "Iraqi lab" will have made their getaway. If so, one of the justifications for going into Iraq - that it would advance the "war on terror" - will have turned out to be an illusion.

And the flypaper concept turns out to be mere wishful justification. It had nothing to do with reality: it was more idealistic and the "Idealists" on the left, arguing that more reasonable ways to deal with international terrorism would be through policy reform, poverty reduction methods, and other, more humanitarian methods.