Iraq War was good for Afghan War?

There is only one way I'm able to put my opinion Christopher Hitches' view on the Iraq and Afghan Wars.  The man is a dumb fuck.  In an article over at Slate back in July of 2008 he makes a dimwitted and tired argument that fighting the Iraq War was good for the Afghan War and that people should stop saying the Iraq War hurt the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan.  It did.  The reason we've had to dump more and more resources into Afghanistan over the last 7 years, seven years after we supposedly 'won' is because those resources were withheld to fight in Iraq.  The desire to attack Iraq and to attack it sooner rather then latter put HUGE limitations on the amount of resources we were able to put into Afghanistan. 

1. Many of the al-Qaida forces—most notably the horrific but now deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—made their way to Iraq in the first place only after being forcibly evicted from Afghanistan. Thus, if one did not want to be confronting Bin Laden fans in Mesopotamia, it was surely a mistake to invade Afghanistan rather than Iraq.
2. The American presence in Afghanistan is not at all "unilateral"; it meets every liberal criterion of being formally underwritten and endorsed and armed and reinforced by our NATO and U.N. allies. Indeed, the commander of the anti-Taliban forces is usually not even an American. Yet it is in these circumstances that more American casualties—and not just American ones—are being experienced than are being suffered in Iraq. If this is so, the reason cannot simply be that our resources are being deployed elsewhere.
3. Many of the most successful drives against the Taliban have been conducted by American forces redeployed from Iraq, in particular from Anbar province. But these military victories are the result of counterinsurgent tactics and strategies that were learned in Iraq and that have been applied triumphantly in Afghanistan.

Let's address Point 1 first.  Zarqawa and other AQ-types didn't 'feel after eviction' in Afghanistan, they were allowed to live and fight another day because of the lack of US troops sent to Afghanistan in the first place.  Why the lack of troops?  Because Rumsfeld was saving US ground forces for the invasion of Iraq.

Point 2, not sure what his complaint is.  I think he was stuck with just two weak 'points' so he made up a third and stuck it in the middle so no one would notice.

Point 3, US forces are still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, 9 years later for the reason I already stated.  We didn't get it right the first time.  And the Taliban forces we've fought likewise have learned a lot because of experience in Iraq.  They've used that experience to kill US and NATO troops with far too much success for my liking.