Was Iraq the only way to win in Afghanistan AND secure the homeland?
Divided and distracted the forces of jihad from a country fundamentally and historically unconquerable and another that was fundamentally vulnerable.
Which I had originally pointed out back in 2003 describing the honeypot theory.
Now NYT liberal columnist Thomas Frideman agrees, but somehow gives credit to Obama -- I don't get it either, it is a liberal mind game thing I guess. Commentary Blog went there so we don't have to!
But then we have a real doozy. It seems Bush kept us safe by taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, where it is still essential we complete the victory:
I believe that the most important reason there has not been another 9/11, besides the improved security and intelligence, is that Al Qaeda is primarily focused on defeating America in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world — particularly in Iraq. Al Qaeda knows that if it can destroy the U.S. effort (still a long shot) to build a decent, modernizing society in Iraq, it will undermine every U.S. ally in the region.So to recap: the Bush team kept us safe from an implacable foe by using interrogation methods which the American public approved of and by fighting (often against the admonitions of Friedman and his colleagues) and largely prevailing in Iraq. The latter effort may deal a death blow to Al Qaeda which one supposes made it a very worthwhile endeavor.
Conversely, if we, with Iraqis, defeat them by building any kind of decent, pluralistic society in the heart of their world, it will be a devastating blow.