nice:

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

You know, Skinny, that paragraph caught my eye as well, so I did a few minutes' worth of research:

GEN Petraeus, July 2008:

BAGHDAD - The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday that senior leaders of Al Qaeda may be diverting fighters from the war in Iraq to the Afghan frontier area.

Gen. David Petraeus also said Al Qaeda may be reconsidering Iraq as its highest priority.

"There is some intelligence that has picked this up," he said in an interview.

"It's not solid gold intelligence," he added, stressing that the information does not mean Al Qaeda has given up on Iraq.

Nonetheless, he cited the signs as part of a broadly positive review of conditions in Iraq, where Al Qaeda fighters over the past year have been driven almost entirely from Baghdad and pummeled in other urban areas.

Ambassador Crocker, January 2008:

"SEN. BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?

AMB. CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, Al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is, in my view–

SEN. BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out? You had a choice: 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?

AMB. CROCKER: Well given the progress that has been made again Al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive, and not in a position of–

SEN. BIDEN: Which would you pick, Mr. Ambassador?

AMB. CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

AP, via Fox News, July 2008:

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned during a visit to Kabul this month about an increase in foreign fighters crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan, where a new government is trying to negotiate with militants. [...] Dozens of Turkish Islamic militants have trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and taken part in attacks there, said Emin Demirel, an anti-terrorism expert in Turkey. [...] "They are awake," said Qari Mohammed Yusuf, who Afghan authorities confirm is a senior Taliban. "They have people going by different names to other countries. They are coming and going easily. In the last year, they have been organizing more day by day." Al Qaeda has financed the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, Yusuf told the AP. In the chaos created by the Taliban groups, Al Qaeda has been able to steadily recruit, re-establish its public relations wing, plot new attacks and re-establish areas of operation on both sides of the border.

As far as whether he "would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered," who, exactly, can say what Pakistan will or won't allow if appropriate pressure is brought to bear? I suspect that, just as the threat of US withdrawal helped move the Sunni shieks to begin the Anbar Awakening, the threat of a change in US support for Pakistan might well move them toward giving us room to operate in that country.

So... due to the successes in Iraq, which the left said were impossible, we need to be on guard against a new push in Afghanistan, a premise which in no way supports Obama's skewed priorities.

The rest of the editorial makes legitimate, arguable points in criticism of Obama's positions on Iraq/Afghanistan, but let's be blunt. He can say "I want a 16-month timetable," then bargain with the Iraqis and turn it into 21, or even 36 months; the point is that the discussions and diplomacy can't even begin to tackle the question until someone makes an opening statement. The open-ended notion of "we'll leave whenever we think we can leave" runs directly counter to the stated purpose of "staying until the Iraqis step up." I think it almost inevitable, regardless of the number of months involved, that the Iraqi government will say "time for you to go" before we're 'completely satisfied' with the state of operations; their recent overtures in that area are direct evidence of just such an opening gambit. Even John McCain acknowledged this in 2004, when he said we'd "have to leave" even if we weren't pleased with the security situation.

The "new push" is already underway, Redbeard. That's what Petraeus hinted and Crocker said outright, that's what the presence of "al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan" means (despite the Post's assertion that no such "bases" exist), and that's what even the Taliban themselves tell us. That's why the outgoing US commander in Afghanistan is calling for more troops.

There's a crying need for far more than "on guard."