Posted by
arandomguy on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:58:45 PM
The outgoing British commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier General Ed Butler, has said that the war in Iraq set us (meaning the coalition, specifically the US) back years in Afghanistan. This is the second time in less than a week that some high commander has seemingly been critical of the Iraq policy.
And there are things to be critical about in relation to Iraq policy. I don't need to outline them here, but just know that there are some - even many - things to be upset about in Iraq. However, the MSM spins this as showing that everyone - even the top military command - is against the Iraq war, and that is just not true.
The comments appear to be a criticism, but if you look closely, they really aren't. They are a statement of fact, and it is how you interpret this fact that matters. Think about it. The war in Iraq definitely set us back in Afghanistan. If we weren't fighting in Iraq, we could devote more resources to Afghanistan, and may not be having the trouble that we are having there now.
My question is, how does this matter? The war in Iraq was a necessity - it could not be avoided. Yes, it set us back. You know what? So did the Civil War. Does that mean it should not have been fought? While I fully believe that it has set us back, this is totally irrelevant. The US must fight terror where it exists, and it existed in Iraq. It also exists in Afghanistan, but it is more important to fight in Iraq just now.
This is not a criticism, regardless of what the speaker intended. It means nothing. Yes it set us back, but that does not change the reality - that Iraq was a war that must be fought and must be won, and that it will have consequences if we lose. Yes there are hardships, and yes it will set us back elsewhere, but that doesn't change the central goal or the fundamental need - to win in Iraq.