The Key Moment: No, We're Not Safer Because of Iraq

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 22:37


The costs of war are staggering, a little over $3900 a second, but the key moment today was Ambassador Crocker's admission to Senator Biden that we should be focusing on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan rather than Iraq.

Here's DDay:

Every single argument that the Administration and their lapdogs like John McCain have made or are making break down after that answer. The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. He just admitted that the potential for Al Qaeda to gain a beachhead in Iraq should the United States withdraw is miniscule compared to the already-established beachhead along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected.

A withdrawal and reallocation of forces and resources is the only responsible path.  I'd like to see questions tomorrow on the House side put to Petraeus on whether he agrees with Crocker on force allocation.

Matt Stoller :: The Key Moment: No, We're Not Safer Because of Iraq

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Maybe some one did. (0.00 / 0)
But I wish he also would have asked:

And how about before we invaded?  Was AQ stronger in Afghanistan or Iraq?


Petraeus / Crocker (0.00 / 0)
Dumb & Dumber

"Global Fight Against Terror" (0.00 / 0)
Is that REALLY what's going on?  Or is that just what the Neo-Cons call their Struggle for Enhanced World Hegemony?

Aside from the fact that "fighting" a tactic is pretty much a lost cause from the get-go - the US ignores and promotes "terror" - in regimes that show proper deference, of course.

I don't have a problem with using right-wing frames - but, please - only to undermine and deconstruct them.  Buying into the GWOT mind-set is not helpful.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox