Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is using the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to reiterate his proposal that America flee Iraq:



Al-Zarqawi's death . . . will not end the insurgency that has pushed
Iraq into a violent downward spiral. . . . As long as large numbers
of U.S. troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, that tragic death toll will continue
to rise, because Iraq will remain a crucible for the recruitment and development
of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American
"occupiers."


The first step in creating a strong national security policy is recognizing
that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our national security. Our Iraq-centric
policies are diverting resources and attention from other places around the
world where terrorist networks that threaten the U.S. are operating. . . .


It's time to return to our true national security mission in the wake of
9/11 by crafting a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism. . . .
This strategy must focus on developing strong partnerships with countries
like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mali, focused not only on security assistance,
but on the development of a strong rule of law, respect for human rights,
and fighting corruption.


A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also address countries like
Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breeding grounds for terrorism
and instability.



To put this more concisely, Feingold makes two arguments against the U.S. presence
in Iraq:



  • It makes Iraq "a crucible for the recruitment and development of a
    wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American 'occupiers.' "




  • It is "diverting resources and attention from other places around the
    world," such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali and Somalia.

If the first premise is true--that would-be terrorists are motivated by resentment over the U.S. presence in Iraq--why should we think that they would not likewise be inflamed by an expanded U.S. presence in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali, Somalia, etc.? Feingold doesn't say.

It seems likely that Feingold is simply engaging in what one Wall St Journal commentator called "vicarious terrorism"--that is, projecting his own policy preferences onto America's enemies and asserting that the enemies will be appeased if only those preferences become policy.