More Strange Logic - 2 Points

Thinking more about Afghanistan and the speech...

"War of Necessity vs. War of Choice"

Obama argues Afghanistan was (and still is) a war of necessity (vs. a war of choice). He argues, Afghanistan will become a terrorist safe haven and attacks against the US will likely be orchestrated from there. This was true prior to 9/11, but is clearly no longer true. Al Queda is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Obama knows this. Any attacks on the US Homeland at this point are more likely to originate there. Or elsewhere. Sudan at one point was also an Al Queda safe haven. Yemen has a lot of Al Queda activity. And Saudi Arabia exports the money, foot soldiers, and ideology. All of these places "could" become terrorist safe havens again and have been in the past. What differentiates Afghanistan in this logic?

The war in Afghanistan started as a war of necessity, to punish and drive out Al Queda. It became a war of choice once Al Queda left for Pakistan. Ironically, Iraq started as a war of choice, but when Al Queda arrived, it became a war of necessity. While this isn't elegant from a legal or rhetorical perspective, sadly, it is the way this war works.

"Taking Our Eye Off the Ball"

Obama argued the reason Afghanistan became an Al Queda safe haven was that "we took our eye off the ball," after the Soviet invasion and subsequent Civil War. He also argues that we "took our eye off the ball," in our initial hunt for Al Queda in order to focus on Iraq. But then he goes on to argue, we need to surge in order to leave Afghanistan to it's own security. Or, in other words, so we can "take our eye off the ball" again. I've never fully understood this "eye off the ball" argument. First, it surmises that by merely paying attention we are able to affect a positive outcome. We know this is not true. In Vietnam, our eye was on the ball and it didn't cause a positive outcome.

The Left argues, generally, two things - one, we ought to leave countries to decide their own fates - we should not be imperial and not meddle. And two, when things go awry in the world it generally stems from American neglect and pursuit of our narrow self interest rather than a more humanitarian and worldly attitude. These two concepts are of course, completely opposite philosophies and the Left vacillates depending upon the issue and the political wind. (the Right slips around, too, but in different ways). I'll give a few examples of point one - Iraq, Vietnam, Iran (in the communist coup, the revolution, and now with WMDs), various South American countries during the Cold War - in all of these cases, the Left argued we ought to leave these countries alone and to their own devises. However, let's look at examples of point 2 - Afghanistan after the Soviets left, Rwanda, Darfur, Kosovo, Palestine, Lebanon/Israel - in each of these cases, the Left argues we ought to intervene or have a bigger hand in preventing atrocities from happening (note - usually after the atrocities have occurred, which is a pretty strange position and akin to me saying the Patriots should have run the ball on 4th and 2 after the pass failed).

So what is it? Do we take our eye off the ball or not?

Conclusion

I am admittedly confused on this issue and don't think there is an easy solution. What I appreciated about the Bush Administration's approach to the WOT was their willingness to take a bold position and stand by it and defend it. They articulated a doctrine to combat radical Islam and did not narrowly focus on Al Queda. I still think this overall logic is correct. And what I hate about the hard Left throughout this debate is the immature and unreasonable handcuffing of the issues and incessantly focusing on what won't work without coming up with a sensible alternative or even bothering to engage with the nitty gritty details of the foe we face. They instead chose to focus on the failures of the Bush Administration. Well, now their candidate is in office, and he's borrowing 90% of the playbook from Bush. What does this tell me? What I already knew - their position was no position all along.