...the disastrous diversion in Iraq has allowed these radicals the chance to rise again....Is commitment to victory in Afghanistan more believable if it comes with commitment to victory in Iraq or if it's presented as an alternative to victory in Iraq?
Somehow, we ended up with seven times more troops in Iraq--which even the administration now admits had nothing to do with 9/11--than in Afghanistan, where the killers still roam free....
[T]his administration has appropriated nearly four times more in reconstruction funds for Iraq than Afghanistan...
Last year we gave Pakistan only $300 million in economic support, about what we spend in a day in Iraq....
September 25, 2006
"We must recommit to victory in Afghanistan."
Concludes John Kerry in a WSJ op-ed. Great. Commitment to victory. Does he have anything to say about victory in Iraq?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Ann, I think an interesting experiment would have been to post the op-ed with no author and have people guess who did it. I'm not sure I can disagree with a lot that he writes, but when you imagine the words coming out of his mouth, well that doesn't help the message.
Kerry Writes: "Roadside bomb attacks have more than doubled this year, and suicide attacks have more than tripled."
Yes, AQ recognizes that such tactics work to get liberals bitching.
Recently a crazed lunatic opened fire on civilians in Montreal. Does this mean Canada needs more American troops?
George -
Just stepping in until downtownlad hits his morning stride:
"Yeah, but Bush was a draft dodger that used family influence to get into the TANG, and he's a liar that got us into an unwinnable war."
Somehow that seems to make Kerry shine by comparison for some folks, but I'll be danged if I can see how.
It's interesting that both Bill Clinton and John Kerry apparently either favor invading Pakistan or believe, against all evidence, that some sort of victory can be achieved in Afghanistan without invading Pakistan. I'd certainly like to hear their ideas on that. Contrariwise, I think that so long as we don't cross the border with Pakistan the best we'll do there is prevent the Taliban from taking the country over again. An uneasy stasis.
In his much-publicized interview with Chris Wallace, Mr. Clinton noted that there are seven times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan. True. Iraq is strategically significant; Afghanistan isn't as long as it's not being used for training camps for terrorists.
George,
You missed one:
During wartime, while still a naval officer, he traveled to a foreign country and secretly met with the enemy.
e.g. not his "trip with the CIA to Cambodia", but rather his meeting with the VC and NVA in Paris.
fenrisulven, I'd say from the perspective of a successful (well, more successful) end to Afghanistan, the Iraq diversion has been disastrous. I don't know if that was Kerry's meaning.
Of course, that assumes more boots and resources in Afghanistan might have helped -- I don't know if we'll ever know the answer to that.
I don't think victory in Afghanistan will ever be possible in the short term. The population is so imporvershed that they will never be able to take on a fanatical movement without Western military aid. Further, the lack of a port and reliable allies bordering the country makes sustaining a large force in Afghanistan very risky if not impossible. Instead we should seek to contain the Taliban and concentrate our efforts in Iraq. Transforming Iraq will transform the region. Transforming Afghanistan will do nothing. Iraq has a sophisticated population and would be able to sustain itself eventually on its own.
By "fighting them over there instead of over here" more Americans have died than died in the attacks of 9/11....
Right, and that's significant because of the law that said that the American response to 9/11 had to have fewer casualties than 9/11 itself.
It's a good thing that the US lost fewer people in the rest of WWII than we did at Pearl Harbor or this argument would be useless.
There's a predictably partisan quality to this thread, and that's a pretty good barometer for one of the biggest sources of weakness in addressing the threat of global terrorism. However unacceptable Kerry may have been as a Presidential candidate (I found him unacceptable but 49% of the electorate didn't), it's essential to get past the sense of an unbridgeable partisan divide on these issues if the US is ever to be successful.
Put aside Kerry's comments on Iraq, and just focus for a moment on his contention that the war in Afganistan is going badly because of a lack of military resources. He says that the US should devote the resources need to prevail (where are those allies he was once so fond of?). He may well have a point. Many conservatives have been making the same point, about both Afganistan and Iraq, for a while. Not being a military strategist, I don't know whether they're right. But whenever a prominent Democrat wants to commit more resources to the real fight, rather than tossing pork at gov't employees' unions of "first responders" all over the country for domestic political purposes, perhaps it's time to respond with something other than a snarl.
Yes, I realize that Kerry is, well, Kerry, and that his real agenda may well be all PR, spin and the upcoming elections. But the political reality in the US is that, in terms of fighting a real war on Islamofascism, we cannot afford to write off the Democrats. To do so is to telegraph the message that it's just a matter of time before the US pulls out of this fight, since it is only a matter of time before the country elects a Dem to the presidency.
This proposal, even discounting its source, needs to be taken seriously. And in the process, perhaps even Kerry will come to see that (a) the source of many problems in Afganistan is the proximity of Iran and Pakistan, and thus the problem is wider and more intractable than Kerry suggests; and (b) the reasons Kerry gives for his assertion that it is essential that the good guys prevail in Afganistan are the same reasons why it is essential for the good guys to prevail in Iraq.
So don't ask me how to fix something that has been broken by five years of incompetent and criminal leadership and sanctified by a lazy, greedy, complacent public who claims to want to fight the war on terror but when asked to sacrifice personally are unwilling to lift a finger or forgo one tax cut.
Translation: I have no plan. I have no idea what would constitute a good plan. If my opponent came up with the best plan possible, I would not recognize it as the best plan possible. Furthermore, even if I privately recognized it was the best plan possible, I would publicly deny it. Then I would claim my enemies are exploiting the poor and call for tax raises that would tank the economy. No, I have never taken an economics course, but I have skimmed the Cliff Notes to Das Kapital. Go Pelosi!
Translation: I have no plan.
This does seem to be every politician's mantra at the moment. For the right, the plan is to follow Bush. But where is he leading? He asks for absolutely no sacrifice on the part of any American -- save the soldiers who die and their families left behind, and that makes me wonder if this is a war he's in to win, or just in to make political hay and perpetuate Republican power. If it's the latter, the Democrats are unfortunately enabling him.
Why not tax gasoline? Or establish a draft so sufficent troops can be sent? If this is the battle of the generation politicos tell us it is, such actions are certainly justified. How come nothing like this is suggested?
For the right, the plan is to follow Bush. But where is he leading? He asks for absolutely no sacrifice on the part of any American --
What about the loss of civil rights the left is always going on about? Isn't that a sacrifice that the govt has asked people to make?
freder -
"Well, somehow, someway, a significant portion of the American people got the distinct impression that Iraq was (involved in th e9-11 attacks)...."
That's a canard.
Don't cite all the polls. I know about all the polls.
One feeble attempt via logic: One figure bandied about says that 70% of American believe it, or did in 2004 or whenever the poll was taken.
Think what that would mean, very roughly: 100% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats believe it.
Based, by the way, on the subtle insinuations liberals always claim to have seen in scattered administration statements, insinuations and obscure talk-show pronouncements that somehow overwhelmed the very many explicit statements saying he was not involved.
To such an extent, that 100% of Republicans and 40% of otherwise-Bush-hating Democrats accept it.
I'll never convince you of this. Just keep in mind, I definitely have looked at it a lot more carefully than you.
Brian, if you think throwing our rights at the terrorists will win this battle, you are sadly delusional. And your flippancy represents everything that is wrong with the present debate. "The Left" thinks they can win by opposing the war. "The Right" thinks they can win by opposing "The Left" with wisecracks and mocking.
I'm curious what you would suggest. If it's stay the course, please identify what's working. I guess I'll ask fenrisulven the same thing.
Kerry does make some legitimate points, though, as usual, he seems to be criticizing more than really making concrete proposals.
The problem is primarily that thanks to Clinton's Peace Dividend, we really don't have enough troops any more to do what needs to be done, and too many of those we do have are of the wrong type. We need fewer heavy armor and artillary troops and more light infantry, special forces, intelligence, police, etc.
But this isn't the fault of the present Administration. Rather, SecDef Rumsfeld is doing an amazing job of reforming the military to fight the global WoT, from its previous mission of fighting the Soviets in Europe, while still fighting in Afganistan and Iraq.
So, yes, if we had not invaded Iraq, we would have more light troops with the approrpriate skills to deploy in Afganistan.
But that doesn't drain the swamps, but rather just fights the alligators. Iraq has been the center of this part of the world for millenia. And what happens there affects the rest of the Islamic world far, far, more than does what happens in remote Afganistan.
Kerry still doesn't want to admit that this is not a police action against a rogue state that supported terrorists who killed 3,000+ Americans. Rather, this is WWIV (or III, depending on your definition). And either Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism is defeated militarily and ideologically, or it will destroy our civilization, as it intends. And we can't do either one in Afganistan. We could win the battle there, but not the war.
It amuses me that so many of the people who repeatedly insist that victory in Iraq is impossible insist that victory in Afghanistan is achievable.
Afghanistan is a much nastier, unstable, and Islamist-ridden nation than Iraq is.
I support what we're doing in Afghanistan, but at some level that country is not governable.
It's all about sheep and the folks that tend them, mean nasty people. With time on their hands to plink at rocks and plot how to steal sheep and women from the next tribe. Nobody has ever goerned Afghanistan really. It's just that before we had modern communications, nobody noticed or cared. The best we're going to be able to do is knock out large groups of Taliban, and protect the cities.
The Afghan government is going to have to win it's battle for hearts and minds.
We tossed the Taliban out with SOF troops riding with the northen alliance and calling in US firepower. That basicly is our approach now, 2 more heavy divisions, which we don't have, would just be more mouths to feed and would not be a good use of troops, better to rest them at home.
And what exactly is "victory" in Iraq supposed to mean?
That is a real question, because this is a moving target.
Before we invaded, victory would have been defined as 1) removing Sadaam from power and 2) de-arming Iraq and ensuring that it does not have weapons of mass destruction and maybe as a stretch 3) setting up a democracy in Iraq by having free electins.
Last time I checked all 3 objectives were met. Yet, somehow we're still fighting for "victory" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean nowadays. Defeat the "evil-doers" I guess???? Sounds vague to me.
Before we invaded, victory would have been defined as 1) removing Sadaam from power and 2) de-arming Iraq and ensuring that it does not have weapons of mass destruction and maybe as a stretch 3) setting up a democracy in Iraq by having free electins.
From Bush's March 17th, 2003 national address:
"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.
So let's have none of this bullshit about how "maybe, as a stretch", we were planning to hold elections and get out of town. Helping Iraq build a stable, democratic government was one of our goals from the very beginning, and anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or simply too ignorant of the history of this conflict to have any business offering an opinion on it.
Yet, somehow we're still fighting for "victory" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean nowadays. Defeat the "evil-doers" I guess???? Sounds vague to me.
Yeah, it is often difficult to understand things you can't be bothered to actually pay attention to.
Lol. I hate cliches
Really? Because I don't think I've ever seen you write anything I haven't read at least a dozen times before.
Post a Comment