If most of the fighters, their weapons and funding, in Iraq, is foreign (which it is)... doesn't that mean....

Question

that most of it, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, we'd be dealing with in Afghanistan?

That doesn't in and of itself justify Iraq but I frequently see some bad accounting with this - I see people who are opposed to the Iraq War suggesting that every penny spent in Iraq would otherwise not be spent, and be available for social programs or deficit / debt reduction.

The sectarian violence is local, but most of the heavy fighting is with foreigners.But most of the heavy fighting is with "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and other foreign groups. Even to the extent the insurgents are local they are armed and funded from foreign sources - jihadists.

Iraq is closer to Syria and Iran than is Afghanistan and the borders are equally porous and it is easier to cross an imaginary line in the sand than a mountain pass with small artillery. But if you're willing to die for Allah, you're willing to walk a few hundred more miles. If we'd never gone into Iraq, Afghanistan would simply be a bigger fight.

Pfo yes, given the choice, they went into the country that was easiest to infiltrate - - - and farthest from OBL, which is not a coincidence.

Answer 1

It means we have to crush them in iraq and go after and defeat the other state sponsors of terror that they are coming from; Iran,Syria,Saudi Arabia,Chechnya among others

Answer 2

If were had not went into Iraq and just stayed in Afghanistan...we would be dealing with the same thing were are having now except Saddam would be in the mix (Everyone but Liberals know that Saddam would give 10K to the families of Palestinian suicide bomber) and having to fight them in the mountainous terrain there...that is one reason why we decided to topple Saddam, Iraq is a better place to fight and we felt more of the people would be helping us, instead of against us...which is true...we needed a place for them to Jihad and Iraq is better than Afghanistan to fight a war...and what is happening...they are Jihading in Iraq...now we just need to get the losers like Reid, Murtha, Obama, Hilary and Queen Nancy out of the way and kick the Media out of Iraq and let the Military do their job...

Answer 3

A majority of the people killed by the Marines in their initial push to Baghdad were upper class Saudi kids. It is unlikely they would be that involved were it not on their doorstep.

Yes, the violence in Afghanistan would be signigicantly increased, but not nearly to the levels of Iraq. Also a much smaller force would be needed due to the size of the area in question. Moreoever, we would not be having to supply our supposed allies with weapons since the US military alone is large enough to secure Afghanistan.

No, the entire Iraq budget would not be available, but a huge chuck would be.

Answer 4

You can't actually say that they would have been funneled into Afghanistan.. a lot of what is being sent to Iraq is due to opportunists taking advantage of a bad situation... we were actually on top of things in Afghanistan.. so there most likely wouldn't have been the same opportunities for the vultures to congregate.

Answer 5

It could very well be that foreign fighters that poured into Iraq would have gone to Afghanistan, although data (lacking sources, sorry) suggests that they mostly ignored Afghanistan, and escalated attempts to meet us head on in Iraq.

Answer 6

I think you're looking at it too simplistically. To say that each man fighting in Iraq would have gone to Afghanistan is probably not right. That is equivalent to saying that we are fighting every Muslim who will fight us right now.

I believe that leaving your family to travel 1000 miles to have a confrontation is a deterrent. Also, if we concentrate our forces in one area they might be more effective at controlling the situation and getting stable govts in place so we can exit without looking like beaten clowns. I think it's important to choose your battles in this fight, and to make sure you win each one is important so that they are discouraged.

Answer 7

No...

The majority funding flowing into Iraq is stemming from Saudis. Thereofe, due to our oil dependency,, US drivers are helping to support the Iraqi insurgency, in part.

It would have been harder for the non-bordering Arab nations to supply Afghanistan as effectively, and you must remember, there are no ethnic nor cultural ties that link them as exists with the Arabs in Iraq and their neighbors..

Answer 8

Since a very large portion of that money, and by last accounts, 45% of the insurgents fighting us in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.....using your logic we should be invading Saudi Arabia.

Answer 9

Fight here, fight there, it dosent matter. Go to them where ever they are and deal with them. I am so sick of our country pussyfooting around. If it were someone related to the bellyachers that was killed at 9/11 there would not be so much bellyaching.

Answer 10

Most of the fighters are native Iraqis. The majority of the foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia.