Biden Punks Crocker… No He Doesn’t
Liberal bloggers are celebrating: Joe Biden pwn3d former US ambassador to Pakistan Ryan Crocker. Just look at the summary and quote they give from the hearings yesterday: Biden ‘asked Ryan Crocker, who used to be ambassador to Pakistan, whether it would be better for U.S. interests to go after Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or Al Qaeda in Iraq.’
Crocker, in an impossible political position — give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration’s answer and look like a fool — dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: “I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.”
Damn! PW3ND indeed! Gotcha Crookster!
Yeah, great. Slam dunk! Hooooooomerun for the hooooome team.
One problem, this is what was actually said:
BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?
CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is–
BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out, you had a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there, and said, ‘Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every al Qaeda personnel in Iraq, which would you pick?’
CROCKER: Well, given the progress that has been made against al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive and not in a position as far–
BIDEN: Which would you pick?
CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
In other words, because of the success of the surge Crocker would - today - ask God to kick Al Qaeda out of Pakistan.
Perhaps far-left bloggers should stop copy pasting as they please, and be more honest about what’s actually going on. That way, the rest of the blogosphere would take them more seriously. For now, their information value is close to zero.
Luckily, they make up for it in entertainment value.
What’s really ironic is that the Q/A not only didn’t prove what they think it proved, but it could actually be seen as substantiation FOR the Iraq War’s strategic value in inflicting damage on al Qaeda. As nice as it is to daydream about having the Almighty step in and smite our enemies, in the real world of course it doesn’t work that way (maybe I missed something- have a large number of antiwar Dems suddenly become devout fundamentalist Christians, LOL?)
No, in the real world, military strategy involves calculating how and when a military offensive can succeed, and drawing al Qaeda OUT of the border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan and fighting them in Iraq has allowed us more strategic gains than we would have had if we’d continued fighting them only on that front.
The fact that Afghanistan/Pakistan remains a stronghold for al Qaeda is due to the terrain of the area and the ungovernability of the tribes who support Islamic extremism there.
I guess you and Crocker disagree with Fred Kagan’s claim yesterday that Iraq is still the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda, then?Regards, C
Biden is a blowhard, and Spencer Ackerman is a child.
That pretty much sums it up for me.
There’s absolutely no disconnect between what Crocker said and what you state that Kagan claimed (I’m not familiar with the exact quote from Kagan.) What is a military front? It’s the place where two opposing forces interface and contest each other through force. Unquestionably, Iraq is the primary place where this is occurring between us and al Qaeda today. That has nothing to do with whether or not a different area still remains as a stronghold for one side or the other in the conflict.
Cernig, Christine explains what the answer to that question is. Let me add the following: if you stop fighting in iraq, Al Qaeda will regain strength and will pose a gigantic risk.
Exactly, Michael. Look at it this way, Cernig; Iraq is one front where we have had some success (that’s the part of Crocker’s response which was conveniently left out by many antiwar bloggers, BTW- he wasn’t saying that al Qaeda in Iraq was insignificant or unimportant all along, he clearly said that it’s less of a threat to us today because of the gains we’ve made, because they’ve been put on the defensive.)
But what some are arguing is that since we’ve made these gains and this other stronghold remains in Pakistan/Afghanistan, we should now pull out from the Iraq front to send more reinforcements to P/A. If the threat of al Qaeda regaining strength in Iraq were truly gone, then that would make sense, but it’s obvious that Biden avoided phrasing the question in that way. Instead, he had to frame it in a ridiculous fantastical way, using the Almighty to eliminate terrorists rather than engaging in a realistic military strategy that’s actually, you know, possible. He had to phrase it that way to get his ‘gotcha’ in, because asking the realistic question would point out the obvious; we haven’t made as much progress against al Qaeda on the Afghan front because there are so many physical and political factors stacked against us there, but we’ve been able to inflict more strategic damage on the organization by fighting them on a different front.
Christine: and it was only a gotcha because liberal bloggers - who lost all credibility now - were willing to edit the video / transcript a bit.
Yep, but even without the editing the gotcha still doesn’t work if you actually apply logic, because Biden’s premise rested on having supernatural powers to accomplish what we’d most wish for, rather than basing strategy on what is actually realistically possible.
It would be a bit like asking a Republican whether they’d prefer to have God give everyone in America a bank acct. which would fund all of their needs for life, or whether they’d prefer that he allow them to lower everyone’s taxes and strengthen their economic opportunities. If the person then responded, "Well, sure, if it were possible for everyone to be guaranteed all of their needs, that would be ideal," then the questioner pretends he’s just proven that the person is disingenuous in supporting tax cuts.
Sure. Nearly an idiotic question actually. If I were Crocker I would have said: "well, since that’s not going to happen, I’m not going to answer this high school-level question."
You’re response would be the way a good politician would answer. Actually I thought of an even better one though- would have been great if he’d said, "If I’m going to entertain the thought at all that we could call on God to destroy our enemies, I’d have to assume that He wouldn’t force us to choose only one location in which to do that. If we get back to reality though, military strategy would require us to complete the mission in Iraq before withdrawing even though we still face a significant threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan."
I guess you guys don’t agree with Phillip Carter then. He says that Al Qaeda was never the major threat in Iraq that Petraeus and the Bush administration made it out to be.
Url is http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/04/the_reality_is_it_is_hard_in_i.html; Michael’s link feature does not work properly.