Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

« Paterson To Obama: Thanks For The Advice But I'm Staying In NY Governor's Race | Main | Video: Proof That For Years Left Agitated for Assassins to Kill Bush »
September 23, 2009

Defeating the Taliban: For It Before They Were Against It

It's hard to capture how spectacularly cynical and dishonest the Democrats have been on "the war of necessity," but Rich Lowry gets a good swing at it.

At the height of their anti-Iraq War fever, Democrats accused Pres. George W. Bush of cooking up the war for political reasons. It must have been their guilty consciences speaking.

Democrats are the party of extreme situational politics on national security. Almost every major Democrat with presidential aspirations voted to authorize the Iraq War, then turned on it. As the Iraq War spiraled downward, many Democrats called for more troops, then resisted the surge. It has practically been mandatory for all good, card-carrying Democrats to trumpet the centrality of the Afghan War since 2003, using it as a rhetorical club to attack President Bush’s focus on Iraq. Now that it is crunch time in Afghanistan, they’ve gone from resolute to flaccid.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t “think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops.” Once upon a time, she insisted, “We need to finish the job.” Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is touting an implausible plan to train the Afghan army without any more American troops. Forgotten are the days when he browbeat Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for a failure to provide “the kind of commitment of forces or resources that our commanders on the ground are asking us for.” And John Kerry, who used to be as gung-ho as John Wayne in The Green Berets, now sounds ready to revert to his usual martial role of leading the political charge toward defeat.

And then he gets on to Obama.

The Weekly Standard's blog is howling over this in every third post or so, and it is a "keep on scrolling" sort of thing. But to digest:

Carl Levin claims Gen. McChrystal's blistering report on the necessity of additional troops (as Candidate Obama promised) says the complete opposite and in fact claims that troop levels are irrelevant.

Iran's Qods Force training/supplying Taliban.

Obama Administration is treating McChrystal's blunt assessment as so nuanced as to require weeks of review to comprehend his subtle points. Most people would call this "stalling for time" and "ducking the issue."

Steny Hoyer agrees with John Boehner that MacChrystal should testify before Congress.

And so on.

Some have suggested that perhaps Afghanistan is not winnable, or, maybe, not worth winning, in the sense that manpower required to turn this backwards country into something worthy. At The Corner, isolationist (which is not meant derogatorily) Derbyshire wonders why it is we need to rebuild these countries at all -- "if you broke it, you bought it" -- and why we cannot simply invade briefly, kill as many of the leaders as possible, and abandon the countries to their own violent means of working things out post-invasion.

I have to say I often wonder about this myself -- a country like Iraq or Afghanistan is going to have a long, violent struggle due to a sudden power vacuum; is it truly necessary that US troops be involved in the bloodshed?

Nevertheless, even if it were true that post-invasion/power-vacuum violence is more or less inevitable and US troops can only reduce this by a small amount, this seems to be a fantasy solution to me. Yes, we can discuss, as a purely academic question, whether or not it makes sense to let God, and their own determination to purge and kill, sort out who has won and who has been murdered. But the US consensus ethic on this is currently overwhelming: The US, rightly or wrongly, must step in and repair the countries it smashes, at least until there is a change in what we consider the ethics of warfare.

I might be willing to sign up for a policy of benevolent neglect, or cruel-to-be-kind, going forward. Going forward. But at the moment it seems that anytime we leave a place in a greater state of chaos and misery than we found it in, we have "lost" that war, in our own imaginations as well as in the imaginations of our enemies.

Furthermore, while I think this is a perfectly reasonable proposition to debate in the abstract, we cannot overlook the fact that we have made certain commitments in Afghanistan, and we have staked the success of the anti-terror war on purging the Taliban from Afghanistan.

And perhaps even more important: While I am even more ignorant than most on the situation in Afghanistan and what would be needed to win, I am not ignorant about Obama, and I do not trust the man's judgment to make a decision in America's true interest.

What I expect him to do is to make a judgment in his own political interest, whether it's in America's interest or not, and nod towards the Derbyshire-style "More Rubble, Less Trouble" line of thinking because it's expedient for him to do so and at this point he needs to give The Left the victory they most crave, an American defeat.

The political deck, it seems to me, is stacked very much in favor of surrender and defeat in Afghanistan, because that is what Obama's all about.

Incidentally, if Obama does hand Afghanistan back into the tender mercies of the enemy which must be defeated, at least a year ago, I expect him to hand the entire country over to handmaidens of 9/11, and not even attempt the decency of a partition so that the non-Pashtuns do not have to become the slaves of the Taliban-supporting Pashtuns once again.

Why artificial boundaries are more important than a people's right to self-determination and to be free of the tyranny of a larger, more violent, more Taliban tribe is quite beyond me, but I'm sure it's all in the interests of multiculturalism that our allies in the Northern Alliance of non-Pashtun tribes must accept the Taliban yoke once more.

digg this
posted by Ace at 12:23 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Tonypete: "Do we believe the story they had to ask for permis ..."

Ribbed: ""Would that be the billionaire-owned Wash Post, th ..."

Grumpy and Recalcitrant: "@59/J.J. : Glad I wasn't drinking at that moment ..."

Lizzy[/i]: ""Musk, other pro-Trump billionaires have helped sh ..."

Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, : "Funny Mr. Potatohead: ..."

Unknown Drip Under Pressure: "[i]Rumor I heard is that Jill's bestie SS chief pu ..."

CrotchetyOldJarhead...Wearing Pants and Working: "I suspect the assassination attempt was a state sp ..."

Jaimo: "So game changer inviting Nikki Haley to the RNC. w ..."

Smell the Glove: "No way can the Secret Service chief remain. A pres ..."

Don Black: "Truman survived an assassination attempt On No ..."

Divide by Zero [/i]: " I think Trump has sufficient AA support without ..."

Cat Ass Trophy : "And if trump didn't snap his head to the right at ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64