June 17, 2004

NEVER MIND (via Kevin Whited):

Q & A with Madeline Albright: Exploring the world of Afghanistan, Iraq, Bush and Kerry (Dallas Morning News, June 17, 2004)

Question. What's your reading of the war in Iraq?

Answer. I understood the "why" of the war. I had spent eight years dealing with Saddam Hussein. But I had the question of "why now?" I felt more attention had to be paid to Afghanistan.


So, given that there have been no subsequent terror attacks on American soil and that Afghanistan continued to make steady progress throughout the Iraq war, isn't it time for folks like Ms Albright to acknowledge that they were wrong and that their sole objection to the war--its timing--proved to be mistaken?

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 17, 2004 3:36 PM
Comments

I heard that Bill Clinton actually admitted that he supports the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 17, 2004 3:49 PM

One of the objections to war in Afghanistan was that it was difficult terrain for a regular army and ideally suited to guerilla warfare. If there had been no war in Iraq, it is very likely that all the Al Qaeda members fighting there would be fighting US forces in Afghanistan. This would be an even messier war for us to fight. Any competent commander knows that you always want to fight the enemy on ground of your own choosing. So why should we have chosn to fight in Afghanistan, not Iraq?

Posted by: Brandon at June 17, 2004 4:00 PM

Robert
Clinton has a way with words. I think I would need verification of his support, although I'm sure we would first need to agree on the definition of "support".

Posted by: h-man at June 17, 2004 4:37 PM

Why now?

Clearly, Albright has not been reading her Ethics of the Fathers.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 17, 2004 6:01 PM

I'm surprised anyone takes anything Madeline Albright says seriously enough to try and make sense out of it.

Posted by: jd watson at June 17, 2004 10:27 PM

This reminds me of how often it seems the left is divided into the soft camp of those who are always against war and the hard realist school that wants to be fighting a war someplace other than the one that is actually being fought.

Posted by: Peter B at June 18, 2004 6:53 AM

I never understood this insistence on Afghanistan. Certain friends talk as if we should totally overthrow every last warlord. But wouldn't doing that give us this quagmire they keep warning about?

We've accomplished our mission in Afghanistan. Why should we care if warlords continue to rule? Each one now knows that if he ever backs a terrorist, his rival warlords will have the benefit of American bombs.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 18, 2004 12:01 PM
« MUCH TO BE GLOOMY ABOUT: | Main | UNTIL AGAIN: »