# Why Iraq and not Afghanistan? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583 "2004-07-17T15:30:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/1 "2004-07-17T15:30:48Z")
As established in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=249974), progress is Afghanistan is painfully slow. Most of the country isn’t even in control of the government (including parts of the bottom third that are still controlled by the Taliban). Voter registration is lagging horribly behind, especially outside fo the major cities (meaning that the vast majority remain unrepresented). The vast majority of the country is still agricultural, and many farmers have reverted to growing for opium. The security situation is even worse than Iraq; the government has literally no control of most of their country, allowing it to be run by local warlords. There aren’t insurgents or daily attacks because those who wanted to already took power. International funding has dried up. Yet still, the vast majority of our deployed forces are in Iraq. Iraq immediately got foreign contractors coming in to rebuild their infrastructure, and has billions in aid (slotted to be) spent on reconstruction. In most respects, we left Afghanistan half-done. It would be similar to pulling out of Iraq completely about now, which both sides agree would be disaster on a large scale. My question is - why all the concentration on controlling and rebuilding Iraq? Why did Afghanistan get completely left behind? Why is the only news we hear from Afghanistan about American football players getting killed? Why do we need to “stay the course” in Iraq, but ignore Afghanistan? Isn’t this the same kind of policy that led to the RISE of the Taliban? Why do we even on this board spend so much time scrutinizing Iraq’s problems, and almost no time on Afghanistan’s? I can understand this one a little - Iraq has more people and more money - but not enough to knock Afghanistan off the map completely. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/2 "2004-07-17T15:45:36Z")
> [@](#): > > My question is - why all the concentration on controlling and rebuilding Iraq? Why did Afghanistan get completely left behind? It is possible to rebuild Iraq. Afganistan you would have to build. It is not really possible to equate the two. They are completely different situations. Afganistan has never made it out of the 19th century. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/3 "2004-07-17T15:56:11Z")
The cynical answer would be that more effort is being spent in Iraq because there is more money there. Organizations which obtain influence now will be in a position to recover their investments when the oil money starts flowing again. Politically, Afghanistan is a dead issue. The invasion of Afghanistan had broad bipartisan and international support. So nobody has an interest in denouncing the military effort in that country. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/4 "2004-07-17T17:09:24Z")
Short answer: There is no oil in Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/5 "2004-07-17T17:16:34Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Isn’t this the same kind of policy that led to the RISE of the Taliban? No . . . the Taliban rose to power because of U.S. interference, not U.S. neglect. The Taliban originally were a faction of _mujahideen_ – U.S.-backed and -funded rebels against Afghanistan’s Soviet-backed Communist government. (A Communist government, by the way, that originally resulted from a **domestic** revolution and was not imposed by the force of Soviet arms, as the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe were.) ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/6 "2004-07-17T17:30:51Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > It is possible to rebuild Iraq. Afganistan you would have to build. It is not really possible to equate the two. They are completely different situations. Afganistan has never made it out of the 19th century. We didn’t even _try_. We never deployed enough troops or even made sure the Afghan gov’t was established before we abandoned them to the wolves. > [@Little Nemo](#): > > Politically, Afghanistan is a dead issue. The invasion of Afghanistan had broad bipartisan and international support. But surely, an invasion with bipartisan and international support wouldn’t be one totally abandoned so quickly. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No . . . the Taliban rose to power because of U.S. interference, not U.S. neglect. The Taliban originally were a faction of mujahideen – U.S.-backed and -funded rebels against Afghanistan’s Soviet-backed Communist government. (A Communist government, by the way, that originally resulted from a domestic revolution and was not imposed by the force of Soviet arms, as the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe were.) I understand that. But the US invasion of Afghanistan was very similar - relatively few specialized troops supporting groups like the Northern Alliance, who did most of the fighting. So again, we have US interference, without the US solidly supporting the following regime. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/7 "2004-07-17T17:39:37Z")
> [@](#): > > But surely, an invasion with bipartisan and international support wouldn’t be one totally abandoned so quickly. But that’s logic and we’re talking politics. In reality, because the Iraqi invasion was more politically devise, it’s going to get more support. A failure in Iraq would be more damaging to the Bush administration than a similar failure in Afghanistan would be, so more support is going to be given to Iraq. That said, and leaving aside the partisan issues, Iraq is a more important region than Afghanistan and has more potential for future problems. I’m sure if Kerry gets elected the military efforts in Iraq will continue to receive more support than those in Afghanistan. For all the debate about whether we should have gone into Iraq, that’s history and the reality is that we’re there now and whoever is President next year will have to deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/8 "2004-07-17T18:57:41Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > But that’s logic and we’re talking politics. In reality, because the Iraqi invasion was more politically devise, it’s going to get more support. A failure in Iraq would be more damaging to the Bush administration than a similar failure in Afghanistan would be, so more support is going to be given to Iraq. > > That said, and leaving aside the partisan issues, Iraq is a more important region than Afghanistan and has more potential for future problems. I’m sure if Kerry gets elected the military efforts in Iraq will continue to receive more support than those in Afghanistan. For all the debate about whether we should have gone into Iraq, that’s history and the reality is that we’re there now and whoever is President next year will have to deal with it. If we abandon Afghanistan again, it will come back to haunt us. We leave a time bomb ticking in this day and age to do so. As far as I’m concerned 9/11 was far more damaging than anything Iraq could have, or did do to us. Afghani heroin is flooding the world markets right now causing social upheaval while building up that war-on-drugs straw man that might used as a distraction once again should Iraq continue to go badly for us. And what do you know, the Taliban have returned to Afghanistan. Could al-Qaeda be far behind? IMO pulling our troops out of Afghanistan rather than leaving them there with an insistence on having them fortified with large numbers of UN coalition troops was a major strategic blunder. I think that putting the Marshall Plan kind of money into Afghanistan that is being put into Iraq would have helped create a more likely democracy in that Muslim near-east nation. They seemed truly pleased to be out from the yoke of the Taliban, which was harsher than even Saddam was to his nation. We could have had a large number troops stationed there near to Iraq. Along with large a coalition of UN forces that could have been enough to that insure WMD inspections in Iraq could have been allowed to run their course over a year or two. And ultimately if we could have the fierce Afghani fighters as our allies when needed in other conflicts they could surely strengthen our military coalitions. However since we did not take those advantages, it will ultimately be more costly to stabilize Afghanistan now if we chose to do so as first there needs to be a large military presence in place. Plus, now warlords that we might have been able to coerce a year or two ago would most likely need to be battled against in order for their hold to be relinquished. On the other hand, we cannot allow Iraq to fester. So the only solution to that would be spending far more money on Afghanistan while keeping spending on Iraq at current levels. I seriously doubt that will happen as Afghanistan hardly gets more than the cursory mention nowadays by the press or the major political parties. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/9 "2004-07-17T20:42:36Z")
It may interest folks to know that the US troop levels in Afghanistan have quietly doubled over the past year. In the months after our invasion, there were between 8,000 and 12,000 troops there. Right now there is in the neighborhood of 20,000. Let’s face it, if it were not for Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan would not be on any American’s radar map. Yes, the Taliban were bad, but look how bad things have to get in Sudan, Haiti, Zimbabwe, or Burma before a Western country starts taking it seriously. Afghanistan is a backwater. Even its neighbors think its a backwater. It doesn’t stop becoming a miserable country just because it has a shot at democracy. That being said, I completely agree that we SHOULD have been spending more effort with Afghanistan for the past year and a half. But I don’t think it is realistic that we willl spend that much more time fretting about it even if Kerry takes office next year. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/10 "2004-07-17T22:34:40Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > As established in Why is the only news we hear from Afghanistan about American football players getting killed? Why do we need to “stay the course” in Iraq, but ignore Afghanistan?. Actually you should be hearing more about Afganistan in the near future , very near . Declan ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/11 "2004-07-17T22:45:23Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Actually you should be hearing more about Afganistan in the near future , very near . … thanks…? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/12 "2004-07-18T00:45:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No . . . the Taliban rose to power because of U.S. interference, not U.S. neglect. The Taliban originally were a faction of _mujahideen_ – U.S.-backed and -funded rebels against Afghanistan’s Soviet-backed Communist government. (A Communist government, by the way, that originally resulted from a **domestic** revolution and was not imposed by the force of Soviet arms, as the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe were.) Just WOW! I was impressed with how you were fighting Olentzero’s lies about Russian revolution once, but here you got everything totally wrong. I suggest you read “[Ghost Wars](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594200076/qid=1090111315/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5274043-4900851)”. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/13 "2004-07-18T05:52:16Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Actually you should be hearing more about Afganistan in the near future , very near . [July surprise,](http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904) anyone? ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/14 "2004-07-18T06:48:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No . . . the Taliban rose to power because of U.S. interference, not U.S. neglect. The Taliban originally were a faction of _mujahideen_ – U.S.-backed and -funded rebels against Afghanistan’s Soviet-backed Communist government. (A Communist government, by the way, that originally resulted from a **domestic** revolution and was not imposed by the force of Soviet arms, as the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe were.) Herein lies the problem. The US is damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. During the 80’s, should we have cut off any aid the the mujahadeen (sp?) we would have been blamed for allowing the Soviets (actual occupying forces) to steamroll innocents. Now it’s our fault that we helped then repel the Red Army. Any ideas on a 3rd plan? What the hell else were we to do? And before you give the answer, please tell us why you were so qualified to come up with the answer. World politics, and especially war, are not played out on video game systems in a few days. Either grow up or talk to someone over the age of 30. This stuff takes time. Ask someone over 50 about US soldiers that are still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. **These are countries that welcomed us decades ago!** We’re still there, on their invitation. They had trust that when the US said we’d help them become independant and free, that we’d follow through. And in those countries, we have. At great expense. Those 3 alone are doing pretty damn well last I checked. Afghanistan and Iraq will be no different. We’re there, and we’ll stay till they have a solid, respected government. It may take a few years, but you can’t bring a governmental system up to modern as fast as posting to a message board. And whether Bush or Kerry gets elected in November, the US is there. It’s going to take time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/15 "2004-07-18T19:41:15Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Just WOW! > > I was impressed with how you were fighting Olentzero’s lies about Russian revolution once, but here you got everything totally wrong. > > I suggest you read “[Ghost Wars](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594200076/qid=1090111315/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5274043-4900851)”. My source for that was the Encarta. > [@](#): > > In 1973 Muhammad Daud overthrew the king in a coup. He declared Afghanistan a republic with himself as president. Daud announced ambitious plans for economic development and tried to play the USSR against Western donors, but his dictatorial government was opposed both by radical left-wing intellectuals and soldiers and by traditionalist ethnic leaders. The leading leftist organization was the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had been founded in 1965 and in 1967 split into a pro-Soviet Parcham faction and a much more radical Khalq faction. The two groups joined forces in 1976 to oppose Daud. > > In April 1978, after Daud launched a crackdown against the PDPA, leftist military officers overthrew him. PDPA leader Noor Muhammad Taraki became prime minister, subsequently assuming the title of president as well. Taraki and his deputy prime minister, Hafizullah Amin, both members of the Khalq faction, purged many Parcham leaders. Taraki announced a sweeping revolutionary program, including land reform, the emancipation of women, and a campaign against illiteracy. In late 1978 Islamic traditionalists and ethnic leaders who objected to rapid social change began an armed revolt against the government. By the summer of 1979 the rebels controlled much of the Afghan countryside. In September Taraki was deposed and later killed. Amin, his successor, tried vigorously to suppress the rebellion and resisted Soviet efforts to make him moderate his policies. The government’s position deteriorated, however, and on December 25, 1979, Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan. They quickly won control of Kābul and other important centers. The Soviets executed Amin on December 27 and installed Babrak Karmal, leader of PDPA’s Parcham faction, as president. Karmal, whom the Soviets considered to be more susceptible to their control, denounced Amin’s repressive policies, which reportedly included mass arrests and torture of prisoners, and promised to combine social and economic reform with respect for Islam and for Afghan traditions. But the government, dependent on Soviet military forces to bolster it, was widely unpopular. > > © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/16 "2004-07-18T19:55:30Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Herein lies the problem. The US is damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. During the 80’s, should we have cut off any aid the the mujahadeen (sp?) we would have been blamed for allowing the Soviets (actual occupying forces) to steamroll innocents. > > Now it’s our fault that we helped then repel the Red Army. > > Any ideas on a 3rd plan? What the hell else were we to do? And before you give the answer, please tell us why you were so qualified to come up with the answer. In that post I was merely correcting **Zagadka’s** statement, “Isn’t this the same kind of policy that led to the RISE of the Taliban?” – not actually criticizing the U.S. decision to support the mujahideen. It is arguable that U.S. support was justifiable as a tactic in the larger Cold War. But was it justifiable as a way of helping the Afghan people? For all the brutality of the Communist period (see the Encarta article above), it was still a better regime than anything Afghanistan had known previously – and immeasurably better than the Taliban regime that followed it. > [@duffer](#): > > Ask someone over 50 about US soldiers that are still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. These are countries that welcomed us decades ago! We’re still there, on their invitation. They had trust that when the US said we’d help them become independant and free, that we’d follow through. And in those countries, we have. At great expense. > > Those 3 alone are doing pretty damn well last I checked. Afghanistan and Iraq will be no different. We’re there, and we’ll stay till they have a solid, respected government. It may take a few years, but you can’t bring a governmental system up to modern as fast as posting to a message board. “Afghanistan and Iraq will be no different?” I think we will find, **duffer,** that they will be **very** different, for many obvious reasons – Islamic fundamentalism, for one. That’s not something you can destroy just by changing the government. Furthermore, Japan, Korea and Germany were all internally homogeneous nations, with a clear national consciousness and tradition of nationhood; that helped their recovery under U.S.-sponsored national governments. Afghanistan and Iraq are not true nation-states, they are multinational and have been held together artificially by force. Making them work as nations is going to be very difficult. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/17 "2004-07-18T19:55:56Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Now it’s our fault that we helped then repel the Red Army. Oh bull pucky. Remember that old thing about two wrongs not making a right? “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is a really dumb way of making policy. Supporting violent people who were philosophically and religiously allied with the people who had just overthrown the Shah of Persia, who took US hostages, because they just happened to be against the Soviets, was dumb, dumb, dumb. Furthermore, the US supported rebels who were ‘illegal combatants’ (your government’s words, not mine) - and hardly one step removed from terrorists. Eventually they won, received no guidance or support from the people who had created the group of ‘foreign fighters’, and eventually they became full-fledged terrorists. And we know what the ghastly blowback of _that_ particular idiocy was… By the way, though rural Afghanistan never left the 19th century, people forget just how sophisitcated Kabul was before (and even after) the Commie takover. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/18 "2004-07-18T21:18:19Z")
I don’t think the US supporting Afghanistan was the problem, at least not compared to our policy of “Since the war’s over, kiss your aid goodbye, good luck rebuilding your war-torn country on your own” that we used afterward. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/19 "2004-07-18T21:51:14Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Any ideas on a 3rd plan? What the hell else were we to do? Even if the idea to oppose the Soviets by proxy was a good one ( and it _is_ arguable - I could go either way though I certainly see the logic in the U.S.'s decision ), I would suggest that the preferred choice of proxy was deeply flawed. The U.S. and its Pakistani and Saudi allies ( who jointly supported and funded a good deal of these activities ), disproportionally supported the likes of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ( former enemy, now ally of the Taliban ), a ferociusly intolerant fundamentalist, over _relatively_ more moderate ( and in this case more militarily effective ) leaders like Ahmed Shah Massoud. Long-term this policy proved disastrous. The operational philosophy of U.S. foreign policy in this region - that militant Islam was a particularly effective innoculation against socialism ( which in a half-assed way dominated the secular model in the region at that time ) - was technically correct, but simultaneously unsound. The blowback should have been expected. > [@](#): > > And before you give the answer, please tell us why you were so qualified to come up with the answer. Oh, I dunno. I’m just cool, I guess :D. More seriously while hindsight is 20/20, I’m pretty sure that there was some argument over this even back then ( I’d have to dig for direct cites, though - I can if you like, but it might have to wait until tomorrow ). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583/20 "2004-07-18T22:30:27Z")
Putin is trying to pull something: > [@](#): > > Russia: Putin Considers Sending Troops to Iraq > 16-JUL-04 > Moscow is considering a request by the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, just before the U.S. presidential election. The move would be of enormous benefit to U.S. President George W. Bush and a risky venture for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who faces his own Islamist insurgency in Chechnya and public opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq. Torn between his desire to support Bush and his need to address domestic concerns, Putin will delay his final decision to the eleventh hour. [http://www.stratfor.com/coms2/page\_home](http://www.stratfor.com/coms2/page_home) Would be… interesting… to see 40,000 Russian troops be deployed to Afghanistan. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-iraq-and-not-afghanistan/255583.md?page=2)