The Surge in Iraq and Increasing Troops in Afghanistan are not Comparable

President Obama has announced his second escalation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He will send 30,000 additional troops to the region. Both liberals and conservatives are jumping on him for this; his liberal base is angry that he is increasing war efforts, while conservatives are crying hypocrisy.

Before I continue, it’s important to remind everyone that the only reason we need to focus on Afghanistan today is that Bush became distracted with Iraq, which allowed Al Qaeda to recruit and grow uncontested in the borders villages between Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Source, source)

So today, when Obama wants to increase the troops in Afghanistan, not only is it not comparable to Bush, it is a direct result of Bush’s misguided goals.

The war in Iraq was illegal, and not sanctioned by the UN. It was motivated by greed and the desire to make money, thinly veiled and widely debunked WMD search and anti-terrorism regime change. Afghanistan is very different, there is little to no financial gain for America, and although the war is not an ideal solution to the problems caused by the instability and extremism in the region, it is wholly more moral and acceptably motivated than Iraq was.

More to the point, Bush’s reasoning for sending more troops into Iraq was to “do everything necessary to win, and commit everything and stay as long as possible.” Obama’s justification for increasing troops in Afghanistan is to “get it over with so we can get out as fast as possible.”

These are completely different goals, both of which happen to start off with sending more troops.

Credit in part to joe_archer