Liberalguy

Is the War on Terror Bigger than Afghanistan?
By Arnold Ahlert (bio)

For the last six years, Americans have been subjected to a peculiar brand of liberal Democrat “logic” regarding the war on terror. I’m not referring to the moonbat segment of the party, for whom any military action is evidence of our moral decadence. I’m talking about liberals who espouse the idea that war in Afghanistan was good, but war in Iraq was bad.

After 9/11, even liberals recognized the necessity of responding to the worst domestic attack in American history. Invading Afghanistan was OK because al Qaeda used the country as a training camp with the blessings of the Taliban. Apparently for these liberals, all would have been right if our military action had been confined to that theater.

So here’s the question: imagine for a moment that in the course of our fighting in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden had been killed or captured. Would the war on terror have been over?

I have yet to meet a liberal who answered “yes.” That suggests that some of them recognize the war on terror is bigger than one man and one country. Yet if that is the case, then what is the real opposition to opening up a new front in Iraq?

Bush Derangement Syndrome–period.

It is easy to forget that George W. Bush cautioned America that this would be a long fight. It’s even easier for liberals to forget reams of quotes by their fellow liberals–including both presidential candidates whom Mr. Bush defeated–regarding the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein. Such “amnesia” is a by-product of six-plus years in which America has been spared a repeat of the horror that befell us on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a sane political environment, the lack of further domestic terrorism would have been a vindication of the Bush administration’s Middle East strategy, warts and all. In this one, it has bred arrogance. Some of the very same liberals–who authorized the use of force, who promised to stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” with the president, and who were just as fearful of another attack as every other American immediately following 9/11–are now telling us that terror was an “exaggerated threat” or a “bumper sticker slogan.”

Except, apparently, in Afghanistan. Both Democratic presidential candidates have stressed the need to abandon Iraq in order to shore up our presence in Afghanistan. In other words, it’s OK for Iraq to become a terrorist haven and/or base of operations as long as Afghanistan doesn’t. Does that make sense? Maybe, if you’re courting the anti-war vote–or trying to undermine George W. Bush.

If Democrats believe the war on terror is limited to one country, they should say so. If not, they should tell Americans where they might intend to make further stands. Obviously, they consider Iraq the wrong choice.

What is the right one?