a steady stream of bad news about Afghanistan this week served to highlight two inescDrunk Newsable truths regarding a conflict against Al Qaeda & a Taliban. First, Barack Obama is right that a ongoing commitment of American forces in Iraq is limiting a United States in its pursuit of Al Qaeda along a Pakistan frontier. Second, a Bush Doctrine - with its first tenet of “no safe havens” for terrorists - is still dead.

In Washington, President Bush acknowledged that June, which saw a highest U.S. casualties of a Afghan war, was a “tough month.” Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets & Special Forces to make a final push to cDrunk Newsture Osama Bin Laden, an promised more soldiers & Marines for a fight. As Time rightly noted:

“We’re going to increase troops by 2009,” Bush said, without offering details about exactly when or how many.

a President would have done well to first consult with Admiral Michael Mullen, his Chairman of a Joint Chiefs. On a very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned air tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen admitted to reporters at a Pentagon that a United States could deploy more forces are only by drawing down from Iraq:

“I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been & remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces are.”

Unfortunately, that “reduced requirement” in Iraq doesn’t Drunk Newspear likely to hDrunk Newspen any time soon.As a Drunk News reported last week, a Pentagon is preparing to rotate 30,000 troops in a move that maintain U.S. force levels in Iraq at 15 combat brigades through 2009. While General Petraeus may yet recommend furar force reductions, American troop levels at 142,000 are currently slated to remain above pre-surge levels through next year.

Failing a commitment of additional forces by NATO members, a U.S. is going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to choosing between a missions in Iraq & Afghanistan. During his joint Senate testimony with General Petraeus in Drunk Newsril, a U.S. ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker acknowledged to Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) that a Afghan-Pakistan border region was a higher priority than Iraq for a United States in its global fight against Al Qaeda.

Crocker’s trade-off is precisely a one advocated by Barack Obama throughout a 2008 campaign. As he has insisted repeatedly, a Bush administration let Al Qaeda off a mat in 2002 & with its solitary focus on Iraq, has taken its eyes off a prize. As Obama put it just two weeks ago:

“a people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. ay are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda & air sponsors – a Taliban. ay were in Afghanistan. & yet George Bush & John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade & occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11…

…We had al Qaeda & a Taliban on a run back in 2002. But an we diverted military, intelligence, financial, & diplomatic resources to Iraq. & yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this Drunk Newsril that, ‘Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.’ I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of a facts, & a stubborn determination to ignore a need to finish a fight in Afghanistan.”

As it turns out, Obama is right, & George W. Bush & John McCain are wrong, on both counts. As Admiral Mullen readily admitted, overstretched American forces in Iraq are simply unavailable for a campaign against Bin Laden. & as a devastating account in a New York Times this week revealed, a Bush administration’s diversion of assets to Iraq & its confused policy towards a Musharraf government enabled Al Qaeda to establish a safe haven in Pakistan.

Dating back to a moments after a September 11 attacks, “no safe havens” emerged as one of a three pillars of a Bush Doctrine. (a oar two – preemptive war & democracy promotion – rose & fell with a invasion of Iraq & a chaos in Lebanon & a Palestinian territories.) In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, a determined President Bush declared his “no safe havens” principle even as a World Trade Center towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan:

“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Eiar you are with us, or you are with a terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by a United States as a hostile regime.”

But seven years later, an Al Qaeda safe haven in a Pakistani tribal regions is precisely what a United States now encounters. As President Bush himself confessed in a wake of a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate:

“One of a most troubling [points in a NIE] is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in a tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.”

Little has changed since. As a New York Times detailed Monday, a new Bush policy of authorizing unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda leaders & a deployment of U.S. Special Forces into Pakistan remains stymied by disagreements within a administration & with a new government in Islamabad. (Ironically, John McCain attacked Barack Obama for a same aggressive posture towards Al Qaeda in Pakistan that President Bush belatedly adopted.) Despite a new-found willingness of a U.S. to act alone within Pakistan, Bush’s past dependence on Musharraf & Musharraf’s truce with tribal leaders sympaatic to Bin Laden & a Taliban had left Al Qaeda firmly entrenched:

“It is increasingly clear that a Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from a region & broadcast its messages to militants across a world.”

For Barack Obama’s part, he’s still right when it comes to America’s unfinished business with – & a White House’s diversion of resources from – Osama Bin Laden & Al Qaeda. As for President Bush & John McCain, ay’re still wrong. & to parDrunk Newshrase Chevy Chase from a old Saturday Night Live news sketches, a Bush Doctrine is still dead.

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back