Holding the Wolf by the Ears: Why We Must Stay in Iraq

by Robert A. Sharp - January 9, 2008

Reprinted with permission.

Everyone has an opinion about Iraq and whether we should let go or hang on. But who is taking the longer view? The presidential election beckons. Where is the right leader to move us forward?

Islamic extremists are not just guided by their history – they are entrenched in it. They are still enraged over the Mongol invasion of 1253 and the ripping of the heart of Islam from Baghdad. It is, therefore, little surprise that our presence stirs them up. We have invaded and occupied their sacred lands. We are seen as Crusaders. Bin Laden's rhetoric mobilizes the people. It is acidic. Engaged against us, they rejoice in our failings and salivate at the loss of every infidel life. Victory to them is everything; they take a long-term view and expect success as a divine right.

This idea of divine victory compared to the limited goals of the United States makes the conflict in Iraq a kind of game played out by diametrically opposed cultures. In Bernard Lewis's book The Middle East he uses the analogy of backgammon versus chess to express this. Backgammon (Islam) is subordinate to fate and the throw of the dice. Chess (the West) involves calculation, strategy, and considering alternatives at every decision point. Luck has a role, as Clausewitz would concur, but the player shapes his outcome. The West and Islamic extremists are like two players forever engaged – but one is playing backgammon and the other chess.

To further complicate the analogy and to show the true dynamics of the relationship, neither player seems to care to understand his opponent's game or rules. The West does not comprehend enough of Islamic culture or indeed how to interpret its history. We do not realize that, since 2003, we have merely moved the Extremist Islam vs. West conflict to a new location – back in its homeland. The engagement has been waxing and waning for 1,400 years. In that time the conflict has been about a variety of ends, ways, and means, ranging from trade to agriculture to technology, and all unfolding under our very eyes.

The fight is now in their homeland again, at the flash-point of Iraq. It is a conflict we must learn to map and interpret. Today, the situation is a military-centric wrestling match, a brute struggle in its final phase. It is a desperate and total fight to the death and is of Armageddon-sized proportions. Some miss the simple fact that we are holding an incensed wolf by the ears: We fear to let go and dread to hold on. The wolf's pack, wider Islam, watches our moves patiently. Some are looking for weakness and the opportunity to strike; others wait to join the side of victory. The longer we hold on, the weaker we hope the wolf will become. We wrestle this wolf in his Iraq lair and in plain sight of the media.

If we withdraw, the wolf may pursue us on exit. Worse, he may bring the fight to us in our homeland. If we do not know what he will do, our best option is to hang on. The very last thing we must do right now is to lose our nerve and declare surrender. Indeed, we will put our deployed sons and daughters at greater risk by openly discussing our intent to surrender. The wolf will likely rout our withdrawal.

Is there an end in sight? Who knows the answer? Where is the present-day equivalent of the great Founding Fathers? If they were here today, I am sure they would advise us to hold our nerve and hang on to the wolf's ears as long as necessary for his internal struggle – the cancerous clash of extremist versus moderate Islam – to take its toll. We must engage his weaknesses and mobilize the moderates, driving a wedge between them and the extremists, while actively reducing extremist support from neighbors.

In short, we must tough it out in his lair on our terms.

America must at least hold the wolf's ears until assured beyond a reasonable doubt of the impact of letting go. Our election debate should not be centered around which aspiring president will get America out of Iraq the quickest, but the real strategic issue of who is the best leader to manage this conflict and the others we have not yet foreseen.