How can Bush defend his diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq?

Question

Today is a somber reminder of how we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, as harbored so well by the Taliban. If you've watched any of the rebroadcast coverage of that terrible day, which clearly was felt as a first volley in a war we didn't chose, you'll perhaps be struck by how quickly, just hours in, we pointed the knowing finger at Bin Laden, and at the Taliban. Bush pledged to get the perpetators. We worked to rid Afghanistan of the regime which was so critical to Al-Qaeda's successes, and reflective of it as well.
I don't want to hear divisiveness. People who defend Bush and his policies, please try and convince us why it was right to *not* continue with our intense campaign in Afghanistan, to secure its future and prevent the reemergence of the Taliban, currently resurgent? Tell us how to avoid calling the switch-over to a regime change campaign in Iraq so quickly anything but...a big mistake?
Let's be civil, please, on this day when so much horror happened 5 years ago...

Answer 1

Bush's strategy reminds me of Howard Dean's famous scream speech in Iowa.

First we're going to Afghanistan, then Iraq, then we're going to Iran, North Korea, Mexico, Canada.......AArrrgghhhh!!!!

Answer 2

Who said we have not continued our fight in Afghanistan? The fact is that our efforts in Afghanistan have been constant. A larger force is neither required nor is it feasible. First, there were local militias that opposed the taliban, notably the Northern Alliance, so a great deal of support was from them.

Second, you have to consider logistics. A greater military force in Afghanistan would have overwhelmed both their meager infrastructure and our logistics capabilities. You cannot airlift in supplies for significant military forces for sustained operations. It's just not possible. And it would be impossible to create any major supply chain to support huge troop movements in the very rugged areas of Afghanistan where the Taliban and al Qaeda fled to.

As for Iraq, that is an integral part of the overall War on Terror. It was a rogue state that had started wars, used WMD in combat and on its own people, had violated numerous UN resolutions regarding dismantling its WMD capabilities and fully accounting for its WMD stockpiles, and which had a long relationship with terrorists.

They were a state sponsor of terrorism, and potentially had the ability to give WMD to the terrorists. The policy of regime change in Iraq was formulated by Clinton. The intelligence on WMD is why Clinton ordered a sustained bombing attack on Iraq in 1998. With WMD in the picture, Bush correctly determined that by the time their threat was imminent, it would be too late. The time to act was before the threat.

This is because WMD in the hands of terrorists would make the horror of 9/11 seem like a walk in the park. Imagine that.

Answer 3

That's a very good question and one that can only lead us to the inevitable conclusion that Bush has a hidden agenda.

Answer 4

I'd love to hear answers to this one...

Answer 5

In my mind he can't defend it. Period.