Two Fronts, One War
While the press wonders what is really going on with Sen. Obama’s tour of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that Obama feels Afghanistan is the real center of terrorist activity. There is an implied assertion that Iraq was a waste of time, and our real focus should have been Afghanistan all along.
But the truth is somewhat murkier than that. Iraq became al-Qaeda’s targeted front after the US failure to secure the post-invasion victory and occupy the country effectively. Leveraging ethnic divisions, al-Qaeda was able to deal some body blows to the west and, except for timing of elections, could have secured a surrender from half the population of America. That’s an important lesson for when the Jihadists start to convert our culture, like they are doing in Europe; half of our people will give up and let them take over, as long as the Daily Show still plays (which it will, for a while anyway).
Obama’s mistake is seeing the two fronts of the same war … Afghanistan and Iraq … as separate and distinct wars. They are the same war, as McCain knows. There’s a grain of truth in the Left’s position: Iraq was not a “central front” on the war on terror prior to our invasion, even with that government’s sponsorship of terrorist activities. But the reality is that it became the central front, and being driven from Iraq, the focus of their activities has shifted to Afghanistan. That “grain” of truth is there because we are winning in Iraq, and the Jihadists are moving back to the hills:
Having been very publicly ousted from the critical Middle East, al-Qaeda and its allies probably hope they can rebuild their political fortunes and retrieve their legend in Southwest Asia. Unlike the period immediately after 9/11, when al-Qaeda was regarded as burgeoning force, the retreat to Afghanistan is fundamentally defensive in character one which preserves the possibility of future victory rather than representing an advance in itself. As long as the Jihad can hold out against the US coalition, even if they cannot regain Kabul, survival in a sufficiently distant place where they can plausibly claim miracles and victories unfalsifiable by direct experience might let them live to rise another day.
From: Belmont Club
As cited at the Belmont Club post linked above, The Australian notes:
‘We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qa’ida’s fight in Iraq,’ General Petraeus said.” Conflicts have a way of changing their character in response to enemy responses. The Korean war changed course with the Chinese intervention; post-Saddam Iraq took a new turn when Iran and al-Qaeda entered the fray; so it is only reasonable to expect conditions in Southwest Asia to change as the enemy concentrates his forces there.
“We do know the foreign fighter flow into Iraq has been reduced very substantially,” General Petraeus said. “They’re not going to abandon Iraq. They’re not going to write it off. None of that. But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan.”
Senator Obama should listen to General Petraeus. He certainly would not listen to his opponent, Sen. John McCain, but he should listen to Patraeus, because McCain and Patraeus were the ones who were right on what to do in Iraq. And they are still right.
Ignoring Iraq to “focus on Afghanistan” is playing the “whack a mole” game the Left has identified so strongly with the current administration. Like a water balloon, pushing down on one part and ignoring the others merely deforms the whole. We need a unified and consistent anti-terror strategy much like our anti-communist foreign policy of the 1950s and 1960s.
