Military Pushes for Iraq Troop Drawdown, while Bush Gives us Something Else to Fear: Afghanistan?

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, in part to track Osama bin Laden, who is still at large.  The next major terrorist-threat was Iraq, Administration officials said before invading in 2003.  They claimed that Iraq had WMDs and links to 9/11 --  notions that have been debunked.

This year, Administration officials tried to make a case for war against Iran but backed off after a  National Intelligence Estimate indicated that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  Now, after years of  ignoring Afghanistan -- and failing to capture bin Laden -- the Bush Administration again has its sites on that nation.  The Washington Post reports:

"Some Pentagon officials are urging a further drawdown of forces in Iraq beyond that envisioned by the White House, which is set to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 by the end of next summer. At the same time, commanders in Afghanistan are looking for several additional battalions, helicopters and other resources to confront a resurgent Taliban movement...."

"Administration officials say the White House has become more concerned in recent months about the situation in Afghanistan, where grinding poverty, rampant corruption, poor infrastructure and the growing challenge from the Taliban are hindering U.S. stabilization efforts. Senior administration officials now believe Afghanistan may pose a greater longer-term challenge than Iraq...."

"Afghanistan is so poor and so starved for modern infrastructure, one senior administration official said, that it could well be 'a longer, if not larger, challenge than Iraq.'  The senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the situation in Afghanistan is "not getting better. It's not getting worse. In a war footing, that's not good enough."

First, it's troubling that so much war "information" comes from anonymous sources.  If they aren't allowed to publicly speak, whom are they betraying by talking to the press?  And how credible is the information they're giving?

Second, Administration officials keep talking about a decline in violence in Iraq -- almost painting a rosy picture.  In September, intelligence analysts questioned the military's violence statistics, suggesting that data had been cherry picked (Washington Post and GAO).

Third, isn't Iraq still a poor, corruption-ridden nation with major infrastructure problems -- like Afghanistan? On December 2, the New York Times did an in-depth article describing poverty, corruption and infrastructure woes in Iraq.

Fourth, why is the Taliban on Administration officials' screens now?  Did the Taliban simply lay dormant during the six-plus years since we invaded Afghanistan?

Fifth, troop-withdrawal deadlines keep changing. In 2003, the Bush Administration promised a short war in Iraq (USA Today). This year, officials announced that the Iraq endeavor would likely become a long-term occupation -- like Korea, which has lasted 54 years (Washington Post).  In June 2006, Administration officials "envisioned" withdrawing half of our troops from Iraq by December 2007.  In June 2007, they envisioned withdrawal "by late 2008 or early 2009" (BN-Politics-1). 

What will they say in December 2008?  And which nation will be the target of Americans' aggression-compelling fears?

Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions: Don Surber, On Deadline, Prairie Weather, Political Machine and SWJ Blog

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Ex-CIA Officers Say there Were No WMDs &  Bush Knew It

* Is Iran is the New Iraq & Does Bush Want to Bomb it?

* Bush Versus the NIE

* Violence Down in Iraq, despite Attacks & Human Rights Violations?

* $1 Billion (More) in Military Hardware Missing in Iraq

* Under the Rug: Whatever happened to the 190,000 Missing Weapons?

* Iraq: Conflicting Stories from the Front & at Home

 

* Defense Secretary Says Military Alone Can't Protect U.S. Interests

* Govt. Contractors: Driving up War Costs?

Comments

[J. Lynne]

I'm terribly conflicted about this whole Taliban/Afghanistan thing now. I've just finished reading "The Looming Tower" and I guess I had thought back in 2001 that bin Laden was a member of the Taliban and that is why it was so important to invade Afghanistan. However, now as I understand it Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually two different groups. The Taliban were the ruling group in Afghanistan and I do understand that they were a very strict Muslim group but they took over without bin Laden's help and in fact, he was only in that country because the U.S. put pressure on Sudan to exile him after he'd been exiled from Saudi Arabia. The Taliban were actually in control of Afghanistan with Saudia Arabia's financial backing and the Saudis asked them to keep bin Laden.

So, I've been mulling it over wondering why we invaded and destroyed a whole country that hadn't even recovered from the invasion by the Soviet Union and then a decade of civil war when what we really wanted was this little band of trouble makers in Tora Bora. And the band of trouble makers and it's leader got away but we are still fighting and getting beaten by the Taliban.

Afghanistan and Iraq really make me question the thought processes of those people making the strategies. It's clear to me that no one is thinking things through. At the very least, it seems we're going in with guns a'blazing and not bothering to do any preparation first like looking before we leap.