Who says we can only face our enemies in one place at a time?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008, at 11:07 AM ET
An American soldier in Iraq. Click image to expandAn American soldier in Iraq

If there is one element of moral and political certainty that cements the liberal consensus more than any other, it is the complacent view that while Iraq is "a war of choice," it is really and only Afghanistan that is a war of necessity. The ritualistic solidity of this view is impressive. It survives all arguments and all evidence. Just in the last month, as the Iraqi-based jihadists began to beat a retreat and even (according to some reports) to attempt to relocate to Afghanistan and Pakistan, it still seemed to many commentators that this proved that no U.S. forces should have been wasted on Iraq in the first place. This simplistic view ignores, at a minimum, the following points:

1. Many of the al-Qaida forces—most notably the horrific but now deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—made their way to Iraq in the first place only after being forcibly evicted from Afghanistan. Thus, if one did not want to be confronting Bin Laden fans in Mesopotamia, it was surely a mistake to invade Afghanistan rather than Iraq.
2. The American presence in Afghanistan is not at all "unilateral"; it meets every liberal criterion of being formally underwritten and endorsed and armed and reinforced by our NATO and U.N. allies. Indeed, the commander of the anti-Taliban forces is usually not even an American. Yet it is in these circumstances that more American casualties—and not just American ones—are being experienced than are being suffered in Iraq. If this is so, the reason cannot simply be that our resources are being deployed elsewhere.
3. Many of the most successful drives against the Taliban have been conducted by American forces redeployed from Iraq, in particular from Anbar province. But these military victories are the result of counterinsurgent tactics and strategies that were learned in Iraq and that have been applied triumphantly in Afghanistan.

In other words, any attempt to play off the two wars against each other is little more than a small-minded and zero-sum exercise. And consider the implications. Most people appear now to believe that it is quite wrong to mention Saddam Hussein even in the same breath as either a) weapons of mass destruction or b) state-sponsored terrorism. I happen to disagree, but just for an experiment, let us imagine that some regime did exist or did arise that posed such a combination of threats. (Actually, so feverish is my imagination that I can even think of one whose name also begins with I.) Would we be bound to say, in public and in advance, that the Western alliance couldn't get around to confronting such a threat until it had Afghanistan well under control? This would be rather like the equivalent fallacy that nothing can be done in the region until there is a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute. Not only does this mean that every rogue in the region can reset his timeline until one of the world's oldest and most intractable quarrels is settled, it also means that every rogue has an incentive to make certain that no such settlement can ever occur. (Which is, of course, why Saddam threw, and now the Iranians throw, their support to the suicide-murderers.)

It would also be very nice to accept another soft-centered corollary of the Iraq vs. Afghanistan trade-off and to believe that the problem of Afghanistan is a problem only of the shortage of troops. Strangely, this is not the view of the Afghan government or of any of the NATO forces on the ground. The continued and, indeed, increasing insolence of the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies is the consequence of one thing and one thing only. These theocratic terrorists know that they have a reliable backer in the higher echelons of the Pakistani state and of its military-intelligence complex and that while this relationship persists, they are assured of a hinterland across the border and a regular supply of arms and recruits.

So, the question for Sen. Barack Obama and his glib supporters is this: Would they solve this problem by removing the American forces from Iraq and putting the thereby-enhanced contingent there to patrol a frontier where one of our main "allies" is continually engaged in stabbing them in the back? (At one point last year, Obama himself appeared to accept the illogic of his own position and spoke hotly of the possibility of following the Taliban onto Pakistani soil. We haven't heard much of that lately. Did he mean to say that, come to think of it, we had enough troops to occupy three countries instead of the stipulated and solitary one? Or would he just exchange Iraq for Pakistan? At least we do know for sure that Pakistan has nuclear weapons acquired mainly by piracy and is the host and patron of the Taliban and al-Qaida.)

Another consideration obtrudes itself. If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about "the hunt for the real enemy" or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.

The thread said there was a new comment posted, but when I go to read it, it doesn't show up. Must be it was posted by someone in my killfile. That tells me it's working again. Good. I was getting tired of wading through all the crap the sockpuppets were spewing.

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. The g0p sheeple-trolls are free to spread their anti-American hate speech, and I'm free to ignore it, with technology on my side. Gods bless America!

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

When Cowboy-hat Oathbreaker visits the troops, the officers have to give troops orders: "Applaud or you're on convoy duty for a month."

I saw the clip. I haven't seen that sort of enthusiastic reception since Emeril cooked for the troops at Ft. Dix!

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

bury your head in the sand. If you ignore Al-Qaida, they'll go away.......

July 20, 2008 4:45 PM

Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

"And it's important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are."

The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.

(I'm guessing b.)

There is a term in chaos theory describing the how infinitesmal variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.

Most of us are more familiar with the more common name for it: the butterfly effect.

The butterfly effect was introduced in Ray Bradbury's 1952 short story "A Sound of Thunder," when time travelers change the world beyond measure by accidentally killing a butterfly in prehistoric times.

Similarly, international diplomacy can be impacted by careless or glibly-chosen words. (Cue President Bush's "crusade" remarks.)

Some Democratic allies of Obama's are -- off the record -- concerned that the senator too often doesn't consider the potential butterfly effect of his diction.

Take his support for an "undivided Jerusalem," or his remarks about women seeking abortions when they're "feeling blue," which upset feminist leaders.

Or the media kerfuffle after his "refine my policies" presser.

On his press plane on July 5, after that incident, Obama said, "I’m surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured."

A reporter noted that that is precisely what happens with the president, he can change world affairs with one word, finely calibrating your words is what happens.

"Well, of course, no, I understand," Obama said. "But for me to say that I’m going to refine my policies, you know, I don’t think in anyway is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn’t change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I am going to end it as president."

This week Obama will have his words picked apart like never before, and it will be an international audience of not just opponents but actual enemies.

They will be watching and waiting to see if he kills any butterflies.

- jpt

Round-up of Daily Violence in Iraq, Sunday 20 July 2008
Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2008
By Sahar Issa | McClatchy Newspapers

Baghdad

An adhesive IED stuck to a civilian car detonated in Kem neighbourhood, Adhamiyah, northern Baghdad early Sunday killing the driver.

A roadside bomb exploded in Karrada, near al-Rahibat Hospital at 7.30 a.m. killing one civilian, injuring three.

A roadside bomb targeted a U.S. military convoy on Qanat Street in the direction of Qahira, northeast Baghdad at around 10.30 a.m. Sunday. No casualties were reported.

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Qahira, near al-Nidaa Mosque at noon injuring five people including two policemen.

A parked car bomb detonated in Damascus intersection, central Baghdad at 6 p.m. killing one civilian, injuring seven people including one policemen and one baby girl.

Three unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today by Iraqi Police; one in Amil, one in Baladiyat and one in Hurriyah.

Gunmen threw a hand grenade at a car selling alcoholic beverages, parked on the Jadriyah Bridge at 9 p.m. injuring four civilians.

A roadside bomb exploded in al-Jaara in Madain, to the south east of Baghdad injuring three civilians including a little girl.

Diyala

A roadside bomb targeted a pick up truck in Wajihiyah district, 20 km to the east of Baquba at 6.45 p.m. killing two policemen in plain clothes.

Nineveh

A suicide car bomb targeted a site where trucks carrying construction materials for the U.S military stop at 4 p.m. killing two foreign private security contractors.

Gunmen in a speeding car open fire upon a group of civilians in al-Hadbaa neighbourhood, Mosul city at 6 p.m. killing three.

Gunmen in a speeding car open fire upon a civilian in Aden neighbourhood at 7.30 p.m. killing him on his doorstep.

One policeman killed by sniper fire in al-Masarif neighbourhood, Mosul city at around 7.30 p.m.

Anbar

Iraqi Army servicemen captured a suicide bomber targeting a checkpoint in central Ramadi. The suicide vest was defused and the suicide bomber detained.

Salahuddin

An American Special Force raided the residence of Khalaf Issa Turk in al-Asri neighbourhood, Baiji at dawn, Sunday and opened fire upon Husam Hamed Hmoud al-Qaissi, son of the Governor of Salahuddin Province while he was asleep in the guest room and also opened fire upon Auday Khalaf Issa al-Qaissi, his cousin killing them both, and detained two others without giving any explanation, said a security source in Salahuddin Province. The American military said its forces shot two armed men during a raid because they felt they had "hostile intent". The statement added that the forces also injured and captured an al-Qaida financer during the operation.

Kirkuk

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Tayaran Square, central Kirkuk Sunday morning, injuring one policeman.

Basra

Basra Police found the body of a 24 year old female in Jazair neighbourhood, central Basra Sunday. She was shot four times.