Here’s a representative objection from a liberal reader re my column today:
“None of this explains why Democrats are so eager to support continued U.S. fighting against the Taliban as part of NATO forces in Afghanistan, even though that puts us between two sides in what amounts to an Afghan civil war. But maybe Afghanistan is a humanitarian crisis too. Or maybe it’s an excuse for Democrats to prove they are still tough as far as foreign policy. Or maybe Democrats simply think the war in Iraq is lost, while there’s still hope in Afghanistan … assuming there’s a principle in there somewhere.”
Gee, maybe the principle is “Afghanistan is where the perpetrators of 9/11 are; that’s where the real war on terror is taking place (and could likely have been brought to a successful conclusion by now had we not diverted to Iraq for political reasons.” Or is such reality-based assessment still out of vogue on the Nutwing Right? Also, one of your esteemed colleagues poked fun at the notion that Iraq is a distraction on the war on terror, comparing that statement to “the operations against Japan in WWII were a distraction from D-day.” Wrong, as usual – a more apt analogy would be “an attack on and occupation of Spain (which did not attack us) would have been a distraction in the struggle against the Axis. Sorry to intrude – moonbat on.
Me: I’m actually quite sincere when I ask the following question: Does anybody — anybody — seriously think the effort in Afghanistan has more at stake for the war on terror than than the effort in Iraq? I am in no way saying that Afghanistan isn’t important. It’s very important. But it seems so transparently obvious to me that Iraq is more important, that the downsides of failure are more grave, that the upside of success more rewarding, that I simply have a hard time believing anyone sincerely feels otherwise after seriously engaging the facts. Moreover the moral concerns are so much greater, in terms of the humanitarian consequences of departure and America’s obligation in Iraq. The case could easily be made that we owe the Afghans nothing. We attacked their government after we were attacked by people given safe harbor and support on their soil. We did what we needed to do, and now we can leave. I don’t agree with that argument, but it seems so much more compelling for Afghanistan than it does for Iraq, where we did launch a war of choice and therefore have a greater obligation to do right by the Iraqi people and to stay true to our democratic ideals.
This Democratic talking point about Afghanistan being the central front of the war on terror seems like such convenient b.s. I’m shocked they say it so glibly.
But maybe I’m wrong and there’s a great argument I haven’t heard.