Hillary Clinton put her views of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in pretty stark perspective during an appearance in Belpre, Ohio Wednesday night:
We're going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don't talk about Afghanistan enough. We've got two wars. We've got to end one, we've got to win the other.
Why not try to win both? There's simply no military solution in Iraq, she said. But when it came to Afghanistan, she sounded tougher than anybody:
We have a war against al Qaeda and the Taliban who attacked us. And the masterminds of that attack are still at large. And we're not winning, and I don't think we can let that situation continue. We have to put our best resources in against those who attacked the United States. No one can attack us with impunity. They have to be brought to justice, and that means wiping them out, because until we do, we will remain at risk.______________________________________________________________
I can never figure out how the left differentiates against fronts in a war. Much like North Africa, the Pacific and Europe were all fronts in WWII. What we are fighting is an ideology. One that pervades the poorest countries and which also plays on the suffering of the citizens of those countries. I am also amazed at how people refuse to see why taking out Saddam with our invasion of Iraq was so important. People seem to think it was for some nefarious reason known only to the Bush administration.
For instance, in WWII, Guadalcanal was considered a strategic island in the fight to take back the Pacific on our march to Japan. The Japanese knew this as well as American Military and Political planners. It was decided to take Guadalcanal from the Japanese in order to set up a supply and jumping off point to fight them. So, what did the Japanese do? they sent more troops and supplies there to try and prevent our invasion from succeeding, much like Al Qaeda has done in Iraq.
We invaded Iraq for several reasons, WMD's were only a part of the reason. The other reasons were 1) to set up a strategic base of Operations in the middle east to fight AQ where we found them. 2) to deny Saddam and AQ any chance of confluence as far as military and economic support. 3) to set an example of what would happen should a rogue regime support and harbor AQ and 4) to remove a brutal dictator from power that had long abused and terrorized his own people.
Saddam was an a evil man and I find it astounding that the left with all it's flowery talk of human rights and freedom for all, seem to think that leaving such a man in power, in a crucial area of the world at that, was a good thing. Saddam was bent on hurting not only America, had he had the chance, but trying to dominate the middle east as well. Had Saddam remained in power, there is every reason to believe that it was only a matter of time before he was fully supplying weapons, money and logistical support to AQ to harm us and Israel. The middle east and the world at large, is much better off without Saddam as it would have been had we taken out Hitler or for that matter, Stalin or Mao, before they ascended to the power they did. Saddam was a Hitler or Stalin, on a smaller scale to be sure, but a brutal tyrant nonetheless.
Hillary voted along with most of the other congressional leaders to allow the administration to use force to get Saddam to comply or acquiesce to the wishes of the world. Now since the invasion of Iraq, Her and many of her left leaning (read:socialist) colleagues seem to think that they were the ones that were against the war. For her to parse words claiming that the two fronts are somehow different is beyond words. After all, we fought fascism on all fronts in WWII, not just in Europe or Asia.