 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
I suspect we'll be hearing this argument frequently over the next few months:
He (Obama) argued the Iraq war "diverted attention from Afghanistan where Al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001."...in large part because we've been hearing it repeatedly over the last few years. It's a popular argument because it's based in undeniable fact - every soldier, weapon, or vehicle sent to Iraq could not simultaneously be in Afghanistan. It's a powerful argument - as long as you stop thinking about it right there and don't let additional facts intrude on your reverie.
To engage in this discussion is to enter into a game of "what if?". Let's indulge those who've chosen to do so - I'm assuming they've thought it through beyond the bumper-sticker/sound bite level and are eager to flesh out their position. So here are a few follow-up questions:
Would you have sent all the troops who went to Iraq into Afghanistan? If not, how many?
Is there any limit to the amount of troops or time you would devote to the hunt for Osama bin Laden? If so, what is that limit? What percentage of troops in Afghanistan would be assigned to other tasks?
Would the al Qaeda recruits (or "foreign fighters") who went to Iraq since 2003 have gone to Afghanistan instead? The Soviet experience in Afghanistan certainly indicates that's likely.
Would Saddam Hussein have assisted that effort? If so, how would you respond?
From 1991-2003 tens of thousands of American troops served in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey enforcing U.N. sanctions against Iraq. (Remember the "no fly zones" and the near-daily attacks on Iraq radar sites and anti-aircraft positions?) Would you have left these troops in place? (Hint: they aren't there any more...) Consider also that Osama bin Laden cited the presence of these troops as the fundamental basis of his jihad against America, culminating in the 9/11 attacks.
There are countless follow-up questions - but that's enough "what if?" for now. The more important question is "what now?" - and any candidate's answers to the "what ifs" or complaints about "what was" matter only insofar as they illuminate that persons view of "what next".
So on to the questions that matter:
Are you arguing for a reduction in troops in Iraq? How many? How soon?
If the answers to the above are "yes" and "not all": experience has proven a smaller number of troops in Iraq is ineffective at containing violence/maintaining stability. Has the situation on the ground in Iraq changed to the point where a smaller number of troops will be effective? What is that number?
If violence rises as a result of a reduction to that level (or a complete withdrawal), would you restore the larger number of troops? If (post-drawdown) evidence indicated al Qaeda had created training camps in Iraq to prepare troops for Afghanistan would you increase the number of American troops in Iraq? Following any drawdown, is there any contingency you could imagine that would trigger an increase of troops in Iraq?
If al Qaeda in Afghanistan is "stronger now than at any time since 2001"? would all the troops in Iraq "come home" or would they move to Afghanistan? Would some remain somewhere near Iraq "just in case?" Where would that be?
If an American withdrawal from Iraq led to an al Qaeda recruiting boom in Afghanistan (Osama cited our withdrawal from Somalia as evidence of our ultimate weakness) would you respond with further increases to our forces in Afghanistan?
Is there any limit to the amount of troops or time you would devote to the hunt for Osama bin Laden? If so, what is that limit? What percentage of troops in Afghanistan would be assigned to other tasks?
Finally: what would the tour length be for troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or "somewhere nearby just in case"? How much time should they spend in the United States between tours in the combat zone?
These are the questions that will confront our next President, and I think it's fair to ask them now. I don't care what they would have done in 2003 - we all share the gift of 20/20 hindsight - I won't vote for anyone who doesn't have a plan for 2009.
Update: One answer?
