Refuting Pelosi on The "Real" War

[Adam's Apple]

Which Is 'The Real War'?
By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
March 30, 2007

"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan." (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 8)

The Senate and the House have both passed bills for ending the Iraq war, or at least liquidating the American involvement in it. The resolutions, approved by the barest majorities, were underpinned by one unmistakable theme: wrong war, wrong place, distracting us from the real war that is elsewhere.

Where? In Afghanistan. The emphasis on Afghanistan echoed across the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress from Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee to former admiral and Rep. Joe Sestak. It is a staple of the three leading Democratic candidates for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. It is the refrain of their last presidential candidate, John Kerry, and of their current party leader, Howard Dean, who complains that "we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. That's where the real war on terror is."

Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, the greater importance of Afghanistan is the least serious.

And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined, does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.

for full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901987.html

 

[NATO AIR]

The man is a simpleton, not once does he mention Pakistan, which is the real danger of all these countries (read the recent Front Page symposium on that?) we're dealing with now, and the country where Al-Qaeda is enjoying its rebirth in their lawless areas.

This is the problem with neocons like Krauthammer, not only have they been totally discredited by the war in Iraq, they're not even that bright to begin with, let alone intellectually honest.

 

[Adam's Apple]

The man is a simpleton, not once does he mention Pakistan, which is the real danger of all these countries (read the recent Front Page symposium on that?) we're dealing with now, and the country where Al-Qaeda is enjoying its rebirth in their lawless areas. /QUOTE]

Pelosi didn't mention Pakistan either. So if the Dems were correct in what they are saying it would be that the "real" war is in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan? Krauthammer covered Al Quada's attentions to Iraq in his article, if it is Al Quada that is your concern.

 

[NATO AIR]

Pelosi didn't mention Pakistan either. So if the Dems were correct in what they are saying it would be that the "real" war is in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan? Krauthammer covered Al Quada's attentions to Iraq in his article, if it is Al Quada that is your concern.

I'll give Bush, Pelosi, Cheney, etc. a pass on not saying Pakistan is the real problem, because the foreign policy leaders in this country have to maintain in front of the public and abroad that they are convinced Musharraf is a sustainable friend of the country, when in reality, he is a desperate man running out of time before he falls to the Islamists. Its classic diplomacy and politics.

Krauthammer on the other hand is a columnist and third rate thinker. The consequences of him telling the truth or mentioning the reality of Pakistan are nil to US interests. Thus, it is his ignorance of the situation, not his deliberate intent to avoid antagonizing Pakistan or harming Musharaf's interests, that is the reason for him failing to mention the real battlefront in the war on terror, where most of Al-Qaeda and their ilk are enjoying freedom and safety; the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border.

 

[Annie]

I'll give Bush, Pelosi, Cheney, etc. a pass on not saying Pakistan is the real problem, because the foreign policy leaders in this country have to maintain in front of the public and abroad that they are convinced Musharraf is a sustainable friend of the country, when in reality, he is a desperate man running out of time before he falls to the Islamists. Its classic diplomacy and politics.

Krauthammer on the other hand is a columnist and third rate thinker. The consequences of him telling the truth or mentioning the reality of Pakistan are nil to US interests. Thus, it is his ignorance of the situation, not his deliberate intent to avoid antagonizing Pakistan or harming Musharaf's interests, that is the reason for him failing to mention the real battlefront in the war on terror, where most of Al-Qaeda and their ilk are enjoying freedom and safety; the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border.

I disagee with your take that Krauthammer is a third rate thinker. I agree with you about Pakistan however.

With that said, here is one reason Krauthamammer is not 3rd rate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501796_pf.html

Britain's Humiliation -- and Europe's

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 6, 2007; A21

Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the United Nations -- that pretend to maintain international order.

You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.

The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian "diplomat" who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian "consular officials" -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck.

Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.

Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.

Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. "The Dutch," reported the Times of London, "said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue." So much for European solidarity.

Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the European Union is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical.

...

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'll give Bush, Pelosi, Cheney, etc. a pass on not saying Pakistan is the real problem, because the foreign policy leaders in this country have to maintain in front of the public and abroad that they are convinced Musharraf is a sustainable friend of the country, when in reality, he is a desperate man running out of time before he falls to the Islamists. Its classic diplomacy and politics.

Nice dodge on the Dems' insistance that the real war is in Afghanistan. For your sake, you had better hope and pray that Musharraf remains is control of the government in Pakistan. If the terrorists succeed in their next assassination attempt, that means nuclear weapons will be in their hands. You think it's bad now?