02/24/2008 (2:07 pm)
Obama Just Got It Wrong
Thursday night we heard Democratic candidate Obama tell a hair-curling anecdote about US soldiers sent to Afghanistan with insufficient manpower, training, and weapons, scrounging captured enemy because they were not amply supplied themselves. This, says candidate Obama, is due to a crucially poor decision by our Commander-In-Chief, diverting attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq, where al Qaeda “are stronger now than at any time since 2001.” The original statement and a number of conservative replies can be found at Hot Air.
The dust cloud has settled, but the central issue of the incident, whether Obama was making a valid point or not, has not been addressed.
After the debate Thursday, Milblogs and ex-military types on other conservative sites called”BS” frenetically. I read complaints about the alleged rank of the platoon leader, about the size of the unit, about military protocol for training, about using enemy weapons (noting the difference in sound between standard-issue US weapons and the enemy’s favorite weapons, some ex-mil commenters argued why US soldiers would choose to use such weapons, while other argued why they would never use such weapons.) The complaints were all over the map.
Jake Tapper, blogger for ABC, claimed to fact-check the story, said “I find it credible,” and then fired a snark round at the milbloggers.
I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.
You can just feel the self-righteousness oozing out of that, can’t you? The Jawa Report pointed out, correctly, that simply calling the source and getting him to repeat what he said to Obama does not constitute “fact-checking,” and appropriately spanked Tapper, though I doubt that Tapper has the sense to feel spanked. As some anonymous sage observed, “Ego is the anaesthetic given by kindly nature to ease the pain of being a damn fool.”
The Pentagon itself got riled up and wants to talk to the Captain in question.
After a few rounds, we’re down to something akin to facts about the incident. It probably was a real report, though Obama exaggerated the part about using Taliban weapons “because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped…” which wasn’t in the original story. Also, the officer, who was complaining about events from 2003 when he was a Lieutenant, probably mixed up some details of this account with problems he encountered elsewhere, as light infantry platoons in Afghanistan apparently were not issued Humvees.
What strikes me about the incident is that none of the complaints addressed the real issue. The issue is that the point Obama is making has nothing to do with the anecdote, and is wrong from the ground up.
If a platoon got sent into theater with inadequate equipment or training or insufficient manpower, it indicates a procedural problem within the military, not a bad decision by the Commander-in-Chief. That’s why the Pentagon got riled up; if the story is accurate, they have some fixing to do in their internal control systems. As Phil Carter, who works on the Obama campaign, pointed out, the problem of soldiers using enemy weapons due to resupply problems happens in every theater of every war; running a military is all about supply lines, and making sure they’re working right is the constant job of military brass.
As to al Qaeda in Afghanistan, three things need to be said:
1) Al Qaeda recognized Iraq as the central theater in the war against the US. Not only did documents from al Qaeda operatives tell us this, but they would not have fought us so hard there if they did not think Iraq important. Any observer of the situation who’s still insisting Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror is simply hiding his head where sounds don’t reach (you may pick your favorite hole to finish the illustration). The nation cannot afford to let any such person get within 18 light years of any senior policy position.
2) Al Qaeda had to run to Afghanistan because they were getting torn to shreds in Iraq. If we’d focused on Afghanistan, they’d have run somewhere else; Sudan, Pakistan, the Philippines, maybe Iraq. That’s what it means to fight an international network. That’s why we need a worldwide effort, something the Bush administration has constructed with a great deal of skill and care.
3) Al Qaeda is strong in Afghanistan today, not because the US lacked the manpower to go after them, but because the US made a decision, backed by Congress, to turn the Afghanistan theater over to NATO, and NATO simply dropped the ball. If you’ll recall, shuffling the job to international organizations was John Kerry’s blueprint, and supported by the Democrats. NATO committed some troops to theater but they did not engage the enemy, and many NATO allies were unwilling to commit more troops.
Obama was relating an anecdote that he had, in fact, heard, but he was drawing lessons from it that simply don’t follow. If he misunderstands military issues, this indicates that he truly lacks the experience and the humility to lead the military (those who lack experience can learn, if they have the humility to admit ignorance); if he does understand military issues, then he’s engaging in demagoguery. I’m not sure which is correct. Neither one is encouraging. But the fact that he’s still reciting DNC talking points about Iraq 4 years after they’ve been completely discredited makes him very, very dangerous.
« « Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You | Main | Rise in Hurricane Damage Not Due to Climate Change, says NOAA » »
10 Comments »
Comment by darkhorse
Hey Phil -
Clearly Obama is not an experienced Commander in Chief (competent advisors needed) I wonder about this, though:
“Any observer of the situation who’s still insisting Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror is simply hiding his head where sounds don’t reach (you may pick your favorite hole to finish the illustration).”
Realizing the toothpaste is out of the tube now, but would Iraq have had anything to do with the war on terror (at least from the Al Qaida side) had we not “rushed in” where wise men feared to tread?
Comment by Phil
would Iraq have had anything to do with the war on terror (at least from the Al Qaida side) had we not “rushed in” where wise men feared to tread?
Absolutely, yes.
Iraq and al Qaeda had an arm’s-length relationship, just as al Qaeda and a number of other Middle East governments probably have such a relationship. Al Qaeda, let’s remember, is not a nation with embassies, and is apt to commit acts of terrorism wherever it feels like it can make a religious point (like, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia,) so no governments are all that pleased to have them around, though most Middle Eastern governments are probably open to at least having conversations with them.
However, since the goal of al Qaeda is a worldwide caliphate, and the means to achieve it is the rising strength of the Islamic world, they’re naturally going to rush in and make an issue wherever we decide to take action to change the dynamic that’s feeding them. We chose Iraq — they gravitated to Iraq. If we’d have chosen Saudi Arabia, they’d have shown up there. If we’d have chosen Iran, they’d have shown up there. And so on.
Consequently, the claim “They showed up in response to our presence” is correct. However, the claim “Iraq had no consequence in the war on terror” is not indicated by that answer at all. Quite the contrary, in fact; if liberating Iraq had had no relevance to al Qaeda’s goals and existence, they would not have interfered with us in Iraq. The fact that the Great Satan was able to change the composition of a government in the base region of al Qaeda’s 12th Caliphate, produce a relatively peaceful liberal republic there, and al Qaeda was unable to stop them, strikes at the very heart of their ability to produce that Caliphate, and undermines their credibility in the eyes of potential recruits to their Jihad.
Short version: anything we succeed in improving in the Middle East, whether Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Israel, or Egypt, undercuts al Qaeda, and is therefore relevant to the war against terrorism.
Comment by darkhorse
I’m sorry Phil, I wasn’t clear. Your claim earlier under #1: “Al Qaeda recognized Iraq as the central theater in the war against the US.” I was asking if it would have been so had we not gone there under uncertain (charitable word there) pretenses.
It seems as if that is what people mean when they say “Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror…” At least, it had not much more to do with the war on terror than a host of other nations (by provable connection)- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, even Pakistan. This seems a little harsh to accuse people of having their heads in through their out doors for saying so.
Comment by Phil
You were clear enough, and my answer is the same: anything the US did to improve the Middle East was directly and immediately relevant to the war against Wahabist radicalism. Liberating Iraq was very definitely an improvement, therefore it was directly relevant to the war against Wahabist radicalism.
The reaction of al Qaeda to our efforts in Iraq is solid evidence of the correctness of that syllogism.
By the way, we disagree about the alleged “uncertain pretenses” as well. The Bush administration made several positive claims about the Hussein administration in Iraq, and history’s take on those reasons truly amounts to “out of 6 major planks with 25 sub-planks, we were incorrect about Plank 3, subplanks B and C, and we maybe have a few questions about Plank 4, subplank D.” The Bush administration was, in fact, correct about nearly everything they said about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by darkhorse
Then you are avoiding the issue about your “head up their arse” comment. The people who say Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda mean one thing (it was not particularly central among Middle East nations before we attacked it to the al Qaeda strategy). You are saying they mean something else – right?
Where ever we placed ourselves, there is where al Qaeda would be. Iraq was a fairly stable dictatorship with very low level al Qaeda activity due to the secular nature of Saddam’s rule.
It just seems important not to put words into the mouths of people on any side of the issue.
Comment by Phil
My first thought was actually “head in the sand,” to be sure. Honestly, it was. But I modified it to permit stronger interpretations.
From the first time I heard it, I thought the claim “Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror” was a manufactured sound bite from cynical political operatives — that is to say, it had no real meaning, just a good sound that the echo chamber would repeat — and that those who are repeating it are naive.
To those who are thinking that, it’s relevant to ask “What, precisely, do you consider the ‘War On Terror’ to be, and what strategy might we pursue to win it?” I’m not sure what they would answer, so I can’t really put words in their mouths, but I think it’s safe to say that those who think that way, are thinking incomplete thoughts.
The answer I gave in my two previous comments was not an attempt to evade, but rather, to state in brief terms what I think the WoT is, and how Iraq fits into it. Short version, we put a beachhead in their base of operations. The more successful the beachhead is, they less they can use their base. They attacked the beachhead because they recognized it as a threat to their base of operations. The attack strikes me as an indication that our strategy was on the right track.
What does Barack Obama think the WoT is? So far as I can find, he says only “The War on Terror must be fought, but I disagree about how to fight it.” I can find none of his thinking on the subject, so I can’t say what he thinks it is. But given what I think it is, saying “Iraq was a diversion from it” suggests he’s not thinking about it.
Comment by RM
An honest, non-sarcastic question. We know that we were exerting enormous pressure on Al-Q after 9-11 and forcing them underground in Afghanistanor out of that country, that Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US and was paying other terrorists to strike Israel at the time, that there was evidence of past dealings between Al-Q and Iraq, etc. Is it really an enormous stretch to think that absent our presence in Iraq, they would have attempted to regroup in Iraq and use it as a staging area for their operations?
I understand the logic of them fighting us in Iraq as presented above, but I don’t know that we wouldn’t have had to deal with them there anyway if we had decided not to invade. Indeed, I’m not sure that not invading and more diplomacy wouldn’t have bought them time and cover, and led to a worse situation down the road than the one we have been dealing with.
I’ve heard a gazillion times that by invading Iraq we’ve created the problem, taken our eye off the ball, provided a recruiting tool for the terrorists, etc. But I don’t recall seeing it addressed as to what these strange people might have done and where they would have resurfaced had we not invaded Iraq.
By the way, I’m convinced that had a President Gore invaded Iraq, we would not be having this debate today, and that the war in Iraq would have had a far different course. But that’s a subject for another day.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil and RM -
Nobody – and I mean nobody – says that Iraq is not the “central theatre in the war against the US” NOW – at least I have not heard it said so. Phil continues his refusal to clarify why those who meant Iraq was not central BEFORE the war deserve riducule for saying so. He is blurring the issue by acting as if they were speaking about now.
Our ill-advised attack on Iraq cannot be justified based on the fact that AQ is there NOW.
Of COURSE they could have gathered in Iraq had we not been there…but this is a huge stretch to try and assuage the guilt for taking our eyes off the prize in this way. What in particular would have drawn them to Iraq, when Iran would have accepted them with open arms?
Yes, we are there now, and yes, we should make an attempt to leave a democracy where it seems nearly impossible to do so, now that we’ve meddled.
But as time passes, it is becoming much more clear that it is going to be difficult to classify Iraq under “justifiable war”.
Comment by Phil
darkhorse wrote: Phil continues his refusal to clarify why those who meant Iraq was not central BEFORE the war deserve riducule for saying so.
I’ve tried 3 times to explain, and no part of my explanation relies on the fact that we’re speaking in 2008 rather than 2003. I don’t understand why my explanation is not sufficient for you, except for the simple fact that I still think saying “Iraq had nothing to do with the WoT” is insanely silly. To be clear: those who said this in 2003 lacked a clear understanding of what the WoT is. They seemed to have this notion that when we catch bin Laden, the WoT is over. That has the feel of a bad TV drama, and the sort of shallow thinking that comes from watching too many of those. The enemy is a radical subset of Islam that intends world domination. It operates as a loosely affiliated network of violent organizations, and has no specific head. In general terms, we probably have about 200 million people to convince that attempting world domination in the name of Allah is a bad idea. A free, prosperous Iraq, established with the help of the US, sends a message to all 200 million. This was just as true in 2003 as it is today. If that doesn’t satisfy you, I’m done trying.
darkhorse wrote: But as time passes, it is becoming much more clear that it is going to be difficult to classify Iraq under “justifiable war”.
Nonsense. It’s as justifiable now as on the day we began it.
The justification for the war, before it began, included:
1) Hussein was an aggressive menace to a region that is essential to the world’s economy.
2) Hussein was brutal to his own people.
3) Hussein was attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction, and had even used those weapons on his own people.
4) Hussein was flouting UN resolutions requiring him to stop the development of said weapons.
5) Hussein was cooperating with and funding international terrorists.
5) Hussein had stockpiles of weapons that could easily fall into the hands of international terrorists, and become a danger to civilian populations around the world.
6) The creation of a stable, prosperous, free Arabic republic in the Middle East puts pressure on other Middle Eastern governments to liberalize, and could change the dynamic of poverty and anger that feeds international terrorism.
The only part of that list that is even remotely questionable today is item 5… and there are sound reasons (for example, the Sarin gas incident in Jordan in 2004) to believe that even item 5 was accurate.
Comment by RM
darkhorse,
I hear you say that we need to finish what we started in a responsible manner. But I do not believe this is true of the Democratic leadership. I took my son to see Sen Obama a couple of weeks ago, and the Sen made it crystal clear that a prompt exit from Iraq was one of his planks. Obviously everyone-conservative or liberal- would like to get out as soon as it is realistic to do so, but that was most definitely not his tone. He was very strong in stating that he had always thought the war was wrong and that we need to pull out now. He seems to be waffling a bit on that now, but he wasn’t hesitating a couple of weeks ago to use prompt (precipitous) withdrawal as an applause line to thousands of people.
I guess what it boils down to is that I have felt for many years (since 9-11) that we were going to end up in some type of ME war at some point and that it would be a miserable mess that would last for years if not decades. We can never be sure of this type of thing, but I don’t think it is totally irrational to say, better now than later after they’ve regrouped, and better in Iraq than down the road in Iran.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
