Not Iraq

The real front in the war on terror is Afghanistan, not Iraq.  So says Barack Obama.  Obama insists that U.S. troops should be redeployed away from Iraq so they can fight the war where it really is. 

Obama arrived in Iraq today after a weekend in Afghanistan, where increasing violence has caused concern.

Obama has said he wants to pull troops from Iraq and deploy them to Afghanistan.

"My argument would be we need to have some sort of time frame because we have to start planning if we want to get an additional two brigades in Afghanistan," he said. "We've got to start planning now.

"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said. "John McCain, at the time, didn't think that was necessary, and now there's a convergence around the notion that we need at least two and maybe three brigades in Afghanistan."

Over at the Belmont Club, Richard Fernandez disagrees. 

In the debate over whether America should have focused its initial response on uprooting al-Qaeda from Southwest Asia, one thing should not be forgotten. From it’s inception al-Qaeda’s center of gravity has been the the Middle East. It was the source of its money, leadership, ideology and manpower. Afghanistan’s importance from the beginning lay in what it could provide Bin Laden in terms of prestige he could parlay into into influence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

Obama's focus on Afghanistan as a strategic goal seems to have come about by happenstance.  His original rationale for abandoning Iraq in favor of Afghanistan was his conviction that the "surge" was futile.  It wasn't.  What to do then?   How could he maintain a stance that opposed to McCain, Bush, and the Republicans if he conceded that the surge actually worked and that its gains should be built upon?  He did it by picking Afghanistan as his more pressing strategic goal.  But what can Obama realistically hope to accomplish in Afghanistan?

...it is in the Middle East — in Iraq — that the Islamic extremism has been most publicly defeated and humiliated; it is in Iraq where a dictatorial Arab regime has been overthrown. An ordinary observer might be forgiven for thinking the defeat of al-Qaeda right next door to Saudi Arabia was a great victory on strategic ground, which makes the efforts to ascribe improvements in Iraq to Moqtada al Sadr, Iran or the Anbar Sheiks even more puzzling. And as for Afghanistan, even Barack Obama could not seem to muster much of an argument for its strategic importance.  At a July 26, 2008 McClatchy Newspaper interview he said:

I’m not here to lay out a comprehensive military strategy. That’s the job of our commanders on the ground. I can tell you what our strategic goals should be. They should be relatively modest. We shouldn’t want to take over the country. We should want to get out of there as quickly as we can and help the Afghans govern themselves and provide for their own security. Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region. And to do that I think we need more troops. I also think that we need to deal with the situation in Pakistan and the fact that terrorists are able to operate with relative freedom of movement there right now.

This is a remarkable statement, a complete admission that even if he accomplished all he set out to do, he would not accomplish much. He doesn’t call for a defeat of the Taliban — which would be meaningless — and still less for dismantling of Islamic extremism. One can’t help thinking that Obama’s reason for redeploying to Afghanistan is because it is not Iraq. That is strategic vision of a sort, but of a very political kind.

Again...  What can Obama realistically hope to accomplish in Afghanistan?  Obama can hope to get elected President of the United States.  It's hard to notice anything else that matters to him.