Iraq distraction argument invalid

Washington Times:

U.S. military officials insist that, while the Iraq war is a strain on the armed forces, it is not significantly hurting the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Concerns about the growth of the Islamic threat along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border have mounted in recent months, especially last week with Gen. David H. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testifying before Congress about progress in Iraq.

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat and House Armed Services Committee chairman, opened his hearings Wednesday by saying that "troops in Iraq ... cannot be sent to Afghanistan to hunt down [Osama] bin Laden," thus the Iraq war "is putting at risk our ability to decisively defeat those most likely to attack us."

But several defense and intelligence sources bluntly reject that hypothesis, telling The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity that real political and military constraints on U.S. actions along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border would not be solved by throwing into the fray masses of soldiers hypothetically freed up by an Iraq pullout.

Among other things, they note, the militant Islamic resurgence is largely taking place in Pakistan.

"The center of gravity is on the other side of the border," a U.S. intelligence official said. "The weight of the organization is on one side, inside Pakistan. That doesn't preclude our concerns, or the ability for [al Qaeda] to mount operational attacks on our coalition forces inside Afghanistan."

...

"There's no way we're going to put a brigade in the FATA region," said a high-ranking military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Another defense official said, "Pakistan is a sovereign nation and it's up to Pakistan to make the call on if they want foreign forces in their nation.

"There is certainly a misunderstanding by many on what we can and can't do in the war on terror," the official said, pointing out that sending armed forces into another country without authorization is generally called an "invasion."

...

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say an August 2006 peace accord between local Taliban militants and the Pakistani government, signed in an effort to reduce violence in the areas and win over the local population to Pakistan's central government, provided the impetus that let terrorists and militants regroup and increase their numbers.

"They got more freedom to move again," said the U.S. intelligence official. "That was something that was absolutely disastrous. The Pakistanis realize that terrorists operating within Pakistan are not just an external problem but a serious internal security problem that Pakistan needs to address as well."

...

That is what happens when you try to reach agreements with people whose word is no good, but that is what the Democrats proposed to do in a "diplomatic offensive" to end the war in Iraq. In the event they reached such an agreement the results would be similar to what happened in Pakistan.

Iraq was never a distraction for the US but it has become one for al Qaeda. The terrorist have suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq and only the Democrats can bail them out.