"From our perspective, I worry that for many Europeans the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are confused," he told reporters traveling with him, implicitly acknowledging a political cost of the Iraq invasion.
"I think they combine the two," he added. "Many of them I think have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan and don't understand the very different — for them — very different kind of threat" posed by al-Qaida in Afghanistan, as opposed to the militant group in Iraq that goes by the same name and is thought to be led by foreign terrorists linked to al-Qaida.
First of all, they can't separate Afghanistan from Iraq in their minds? So much for the belief among the left side of the aisle here that Europeans are uniquely capable of sophisticated and nuanced foreign policy. Can we finally end that pathetic line of reasoning that treats every European politician making a "Bush is Hitler" quip into a friggin' Metternich? Some people just have a built-in inferiority complex, I guess.
Second, and more importantly, if the Europeans are upset that we liberated Iraqis from the murdering thugs of Saddam's regime, and since then have defended Iraqis from a joint Syrian-Iranian invasion that has pitted Sunni jihadis against Shia thugs to foster a killing spree against innocent civilians in Iraq, why should we care that Europeans are mad at us? We've done the right thing to defend our interests and to protect innocents.
The issue isn't America. The issue is Europe. Both their capacity to use military force and their willingness to defend democracy--or to even recognize such a fight.
From my perspective, I worry that too many of our leaders confuse the need to seek allies to achieve our objectives with the need to modify our objectives to get allies.
Always seek allies. Never compromise what we fight for in order to get a battalion here or a helicopter there from allies.
