Krauthammer on Iraq vs. Afghanistan

The Washington Post columnist, after noting that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have all argued that Iraq is distracting us from the “real war” in Afghanistan, describes a thought experiment:

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.

Krauthammer then suggests asking Bin Laden and Zawahiri what they think:

• President Bush, speaking last September: “These terrorists hope to drive America and our coalition out of Afghanistan, so they can restore the safe haven they lost when coalition forces drove them out five years ago. But they’ve made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq — the nation bin Laden has declared the ‘capital of the caliphate.’ Hear the words of bin Laden: ‘I now address the whole Islamic nation. Listen and understand. The most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq.’ [emphasis added]“

• Zawahiri in a 2005 letter to Zarqawi: “As for the battles that are going on the far-flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world. [emphasis added]“

Why would the Democrats rather fight in Afghanistan? Krauthammer’s answer:

The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. They would rather support the Afghan war because its origins are cleaner, the casus belli clearer, the moral texture of the enterprise more comfortable. Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, “If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan.”

And his conclusion:

. . . you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terrorism. There’s no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the “good war” in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging antiwar Democrats to increase funding that is needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.

His is a soundly argued case, unless you choose to dismiss Bin Laden’s and Zawahiri’s words. And, if you do that, it’s incumbent upon you to explain why.

The identity of the person making this argument isn’t important. What matters is whether or not the argument is valid. Do you think it is?

Cross-posted at American Future.