Does Success in Iraq Endanger Domestic Security?

In the wake of what seems to be a successful Iraqi election and installation of a democratic government, we hear reports that Iraqi forces are replacing US forces, and with US forces starting to withdraw from Iraq. This is certainly wonderful news.

However, not all the news is wonderful. Thomas Friedman in today’s NY Times suggests that we’re now entering the most dangerous time since 9/11 because up to now, the US has taken the war to the jihadis – first Afghanistan and then Iraq. Both have been devastating defeats for the jihadis, but they have not been decisive. Scaling down operations there gives the jihadis the opportunity to look to the US homeland, or, more likely, to its allies whose security is weaker:

I fear that when and if the Jihadists conclude that they have been defeated in the heart of their world, they will be sorely tempted to throw a Hail Mary pass. That is, they may want to launch a spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America that tries to mask, and compensate for, just how defeated they have become at home.

In short, the more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the more likely they are to use their rump forces to try something really crazy in America to make up for it. So let’s stay the course in Iraq, but stay extra-vigilant at home.

Friedman’s thesis makes sense. He’s working on the assumption that US operations abroad have served as “flypaper” – insert the US military into the heart of the jihadis theater of operations and they will fly to it and (one hopes) be destroyed. David Warren has done the most to bring this strategy to the public’s imagination.

The ironic outcome of flypaper’s success is that jihadis have the opportunity to direct its energies against the US and its soft target allies, including Canada (and here and here).