It’s strange but true, that Democrats seem intent on fighting wars that the U.S. is not currently engaged in and surrendering in the one that we are. It’s not likely to be any different if President Obama actually follows through on this pledge. If the fight proves difficult, if we take casualties, Democrats will press to withdraw. How do we know? Listen to what Obama says about Afghhanistan:
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
But the security of the United States and Iraq are also shared–no less than than than in the case of Afghanistan. In fact, it is plain that Iraq is more important to U.S. security than Afghanistan:
Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question. Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan (or some cave on the border) presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that “the most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq.” Al-Qaeda’s No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq “is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.” And it’s not just what al-Qaeda says, it’s what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It’s no longer Afghanistan but Iraq. That’s because they recognize the greater prize.
Contrary to his promise, Obama is stunningly quick to forget the lessons of history. If we cannot leave Afghanistan and allow it to fester, and become a hotbed of terrorist activity, it is more important that we apply the same lesson to Iraq. We would be wise to see if Operation Phantom Thunder works–and it appears to be–and allow Iraq the breathing room it needs to function like a normal state. If Obama wishes to apply the lessons of history, he should pledge to take very seriously the recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, when it is delivered in 45 days. Why are Democrats so eager to intensify lesser conflicts and retreat from more important ones? Because they understand that they must be in favor of some war–any war–to maintain political viability. But they can’t be in favor of the war that matters–one where many reports see the tide beginning to turn. And anyway, whose kidding who? Obama’s not going to march into Pakistan, as John Podhoretz points out at the Corner, “If the evil Bushitler Cheney Rumsfeld Monster wouldn’t do it, nobody will…”
