Subscribe RSS 2.0
During today’s Congressional testimony, Ambassador Ryan Crocker argued that the war in Iraq did not divert resources “from the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.”
I did not feel from my perspective as ambassador to Pakistan that the focus, the resources the people needed to deal with that situation weren’t there because of Iraq.
Crocker’s assessment has been disputed by military and intelligence officials. Here is a sampling:
Retired General Tommy Franks: According to Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), on February 19, 2002 Franks told Graham that “Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan” because “military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq.” [Intelligence Matters pg. 125, 2004]
Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL): The removal of Predator drones from Afghanistan is “a clear case of how the Bush administration’s single-minded focus on Iraq undermined the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.” [WP, 10/21/04]
Richard Clarke: “If we catch [bin Laden] this summer, which I expect, it’s two years too late. Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq.” [Meet The Press, 3/28/04]
Bob Woodward: “[Former Secretary of State Donald] Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq…Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn’t know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved.” [60 Minutes, 4/18/04]
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke: “And they didn’t keep looking [for bin Laden]. They diverted to Iraq. That is simple and clear.” [CNN, 10/31/04]
Professor Jeffrey Record: Iraq is “an unnecessary preventative war” that has “diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda.” [Army War College Report, 12/1/03]
Deputy Director of Operations of the CIA, James Pavitt: Author James Risen writes that Pavitt “asked CIA Director George Tenet to relay concerns to the White House that invading Iraq will undermine US counterterrorism efforts. They warn that it will divert attention and resources away from the ongoing fight against al-Qaeda, at a time when the United States’ counterterrorism efforts seem to be having a decisive impact.” [State of War, pg. 183-184, 2006]
CIA Analyst, Flynt Leverett: “There is a direct consequence for us having taken these guys out prematurely. There were people on the staff level raising questions about what that meant for getting al-Qaeda, for creating an Afghan security and intelligence service [to help combat jihadists]. Those questions didn’t get above staff level, because clearly there had been a strategic decision taken.” [WP, 10/22/04]
Director C.I.A.’s Counterintelligence Center, Robert Grenier: ‘They wanted as much as they could get…the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq.” [NYT, 8/12/07]
Moreover, mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and most recently Newsweek have all reported that in early 2002, the U.S. military began shifting resources from the hunt for bin Laden to Iraq.
Ambassador Crocker seems to be unaware of this shift, which begs raises the question — if Crocker was divorced from reality then, how can we be sure that he’s married to it now?
This is a misuse of the phrase “begs the question,” which is a term used in the academic discipline of rhetoric that basically means the way the question is framed actually assumes the hypothesis is a fact when it is not. It does not mean “raises the question” or “leads to the question.” It is often used incorrectly by those who want to appear erudite but it actually displays their ignorance.