Why didn't Bush keep the war in Afghanistan?

Question

I would have fully supported a war in Afghanistan, as a response to the WTC's (Republicans, just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I'm completely anti-war), but instead he directed his attention to WMD's, and there's been nothing about Afghanistan since.

I may be misinformed, but an explanation would be appreciated.

If we have soldiers in Afghanistan, then why are our efforts more focused in Iraq (which has nothing to do with terrorists)? Hence, the "War in Iraq".

Answer 1

The war in Afghanistan against Al Queda was relegated to second status when Bush invaded Iraq. He tried mightily to connect the two, but had to end up admitting Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We are still operating in Afghanistan, and recently bombed Al Queda targets in Somalia. We should have put our full force behind obliterating Al Queda, now that was a war I would have been behind all the way. But when we started getting fed garbage about Iraq being linked to 9/11, then found out that was b.s.? That's when I started questioning the agenda of George Bush. The question of why he did such a thing will be debated for many years. Some see it as a personal obsession with Iraq, some see it as faulty intelligence that linked the two. For me, I tend to think it was a combination of the two. Whatever the reason, we're stuck there now and it's clear that Bush is beating a dead horse. This next year will be the bloodiest yet, and I don't take pleasure in saying that, I think it's obscene.

Answer 2

You need to understand that we were/are not just at war with a single country, whether Afghanistan or Iraq, or any other middle eastern country. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, we are at war with islam, in the form of islamofascism.

Long term, if we don't stop the general spread of islam, we will not stop the spread of islamofascism, which desires to control the world. The so-called "moderate" muslims bring with them more radical elements, and wherever this happens, the radicals will take control of the entire muslim population through fear, denial, and passivity. The radicals see world domination as their destiny, spelled out clearly in the koran.

If you understand that, then I will move on to Iraq. Yes, Saddam's rule could be characterised as "secular", at least for that part of the world. But he had absolutely no problems with the idea of "My enemy's enemy is my friend". He was publicly supporting and encouraging suicide bombers through huge cash payouts to their families. The quickest way to wealth for many was to send a son to allah and await Saddams honor payout. And regardless of what the anti-war crowd says, Saddam did have a WMD program. It was designed as a dual-purpose infrastructure with civilian industries that could easily be converted to chem/bio plants, and many other components went to syria before the war. You will never convince me otherwise.

Saddam also had no problem aiding any terrorist organization that caused problems for the west, America especially.

One other piece to keep in mind. For years, the liberals had been screaming that we would never eliminate terrorism until we addressed the standard of living in the middle east. The best way to do that is to get rid of tyrants and replace them with democracy. Afghanistan was not a large enough place, and too far removed from the heart of the terror farms for that to have any effect, but Iraq was right in the middle of it all. A successful democracy there will have a much better chance of spreading to problem states like Iran and Syria. And we knew Saddam himself and his government would be an easy conquest, which they were.

We now also have a great basing area if we need to take military action against either Iran or Syria, which is only a matter of time.

That's how I see it.

Answer 3

The evidence that is available today shows that Iraq was involved with the first world trade center bombing in 1993. There is strong evidence they were involved with the Oklahome city bombing in 1995. The attack on the US embassies in Africa happened the same week that Sadam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq - the embassy attacks were obvously planned by AlQuaeda and Sadam. That is why Clinton bombed Sudan afterwards - Sudan was Iraq's best ally. Evisence also shows they were involved in the attacks on the khobar towers in Saudi Arabia in 1995.

Sadam did his WMD work in Libya. That is why Libya gave up it's nuclear program after Sadam was captured.

Answer 4

I agree 100%. I supported the war in Afghanistan, as there was a connection between the Sept. 11th attacks and Afghanistan. There was no such connection with Iraq.

Answer 5

We are still in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Korea, Germany and Japan!

Answer 6

No, we still have troops in Afghanistan, but its a joke. The Taliban has once again risen to power after we had crushed them. And for what? So Bush could invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Unbelievable.

Answer 7

al qaeda had the training camps in afghanistan and it was a ripe breeding ground for evil death-promoting terrorists.
Iraq had
1. saddam massacuring his good people,
2. scientists playing around with chemical and biological weapons
3. saddam goons trying to buy nuclear technology
4. stockpiles of weapons (including weapons of mass destruction
5. saddam kept shooting at planes in the wrong areas
6. saddam was a bully to iraqis and the world and HE WAS LOVING EVERY MINUTE OF IT

Answer 8

We are still conducting operations in Afghanistan and helping thier government secure that nation. To be honest, suicide bombings, mortar attacks, and dead US soldiers draw more news headlines than school openings, growing ecomonies, and secured neighborhoods.

Answer 9

You are misinformed. We are still actively engaged in Afghanistan. If you watch lefty biased news or read lefty papers you won't hear about Afghanistan.

Answer 10

because the terrorists have not limited them selves to living and operating in Afghanistan alone.

pay attention to the news and you see many stores about Afgansitan