The Obama Watch
Can Obama Inspire on Afghanistan?
Or better yet, why won’t he?
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, told reporters in Washington on Thursday that she has observed little American support for a troop surge in Afghanistan. Mrs. Pelosi has it right: Afghanistan fatigue is now a palpable American malady.
Yet recent indications from the White House and Pentagon hint at President Obama’s continued commitment to what was once thought of as the good war.
With Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for additional troops in Afghanistan expected to come later this month, and a growing sense of defeatism among the pundit class, the Obama administration will have a hard road ahead if it hopes to get Americans behind the war. But Barack Obama has yet to talk about America or its ideals as being worth the fight. It’s no wonder public support for our commitment in Afghanistan is lower today than at any point during the Bush administration.
The disconnect between rhetoric and mission is stark. Since taking office, President Obama has continuously spoken of the United States as a country that “all too often…starts by dictating,” a place that “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward allies, where “our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, [and] all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.” America, in Mr. Obama’s words, “is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.”
What kind of dupe would rally behind that place?
To make matters worse, while the situation deteriorated in Afghanistan and loose speculation abounded the president went silent on matters of war. When he finally broke his months-long moratorium on Afghanistan with a speech at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in August, Mr. Obama described the rationale for war as follows: “Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
Perfectly true. But as clinical and perfunctory as an automobile mechanic’s explication of a brake job — and as narrowly focused. America is the realization of an unremitting vision — freedom and equal opportunity for all. Americans have always needed more than a utilitarian breakdown of dangers to inspire them in times of war. European nations coalesced centuries back when tribes banded together to hold off hostiles who were doing the same on opposite sides of mountain ranges or bodies of water. Unlike Europe, America’s founding was not a survivalist undertaking dictated by the demands of geography and tribal accord. It was a work of profound imagination. The “defense of our people” is critical, but not sufficient to awaken America’s warrior spirit.
Past presidents recognized this. Mr. Obama need look no further than to his Democratic predecessors. Preparing to enter World War I, Woodrow Wilson called on Americans to “fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience,” adding famously, “The world must be made safe for democracy.”
Before the country got drawn into World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed that America become an “Arsenal of Democracy” and supply Allied Nations with materials for war. He framed the initiative thusly: “Let us say to the democracies: ‘We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world.”
Harry Truman’s explanation for fighting in Korea was composed around the idea that “Communist leaders have demonstrated their contempt for the basic moral principles on which the United Nations is founded. This is a direct challenge to the efforts of the free nations to build the kind of world in which men can live in freedom and peace.”
Liberty, freedom, democracy. The terms are nowhere to be found in President Obama’s recent war speech.
America’s ideological core has been stirred by the current health care debate. Citizens want something more complicated than the promise of a government issued security blanket. In fact, they view such promises suspiciously, as threats to liberty and the stuff of demagogues. Why, then, would Mr. Obama choose to sell the Afghanistan war solely as a means of caretaking?
The president may believe that George W. Bush ruined ideology forever. But the notion that all people should be free to choose representative government was never Mr. Bush’s to ruin. It is enshrined in this country’s founding documents, and has been advanced ever since. It is larger than the either the Bush or Obama presidencies.
If the president wants to boost morale on Afghanistan, he is going to have to drink from the well of American exceptionalism. Warnings about the Hindu Kush as the “graveyard of empires” must be countered with the reminder that America is not an empire. It is the most benevolent global force history has ever seen. And it is that benevolence which, in part, guides our current fighting strategy. For unlike the 19th century British or the Soviets, American soldiers and marines are currently in the greater Middle East defending ordinary people from extraordinary threats. America’s promise to protect basic rights and freedoms has become its winning strategy in these new wars.
Nor should the president forget his Afghan audience. Most recent polls show that many more Afghans have a favorable opinion of Americans than of the Taliban. This remains at heart a war of ideas. Let’s not throw away an opportunity to inspire a Muslim population that is more open to American cooperation than Islamist brutality.
Without recourse to ideology, President Obama will not only be unable to sell the mission in Afghanistan; he will be unable to define it. Marginalizing terrorists in a particular region is a vital national security accomplishment. But terrorism, like cancer, can always return. The institutions of democracy and a constitution that safeguards human rights comprise the only lasting bulwark against lawlessness and radicalism. By happy coincidence, they also lay at the heart of the American experiment.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (96) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/14/can-obama-inspire-on-afghanist
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.09 @ 9:13AM
Abe,
Thank you for that article.
I sadly commented here the other day that the one thing that can destroy a military, is the troops feeling as if they are being "thrown away".
Mr. Obama has already lost the military. See, our "grunts" are not stupid, and neither is our officer corps.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 11:28AM
"Afghanistan fatigue is now a palpable American malady."
Only a neoconservative would consider Americans tiring of an endlessly rising death-toll in what looks to be a never-ending nation-building exercise a "malady".
"If the president wants to boost morale on Afghanistan, he is going to have to drink from the well of American exceptionalism."
A neoconservative proposing the exploitation of the Straussian "noble lie". As predictable as it is perverse.
"Warnings about the Hindu Kush as the "graveyard of empires" must be countered with the reminder that America is not an empire"
See previous entry re: "noble lie".
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 11:35AM
"I sadly commented here the other day that the one thing that can destroy a military, is the troops feeling as if they are being "thrown away".
Even worse - when they actually *are* being thrown away.
"Liberty, freedom, democracy"
Imposing ideology at gunpoint is a quintessentially Liberal proposition. Indeed, it was Burke's opposition to the French revolutionaries doing just that that established Conservatism in the first place. It is a literal and inarguable fact that Conservatism is *defined* by opposition to such Jacobinism.
It would be absurd of me to expect anyone here to recognize that, but it nevertheless needs to be noted. You people are simply unfamiliar with "Conservatism".
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 11:41AM
"It is the most benevolent global force history has ever seen."
but the British are still the greatest-- they built America. What purpose patrimony if you wont admit such?
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 11:43AM
"Imposing ideology at gunpoint is a quintessentially Liberal proposition."
but not a squishy liberal proposition.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.09 @ 11:45AM
Well Toddard
So did you vote in the last election?
Or did you "punish" all of us non communists?
I prefer to described as a "constitutionalist"
You know, George Washington imposed ideology at gunpoint. Another "founder" went after the pirates in Tripoli. (hence the Marine hymn phrase)
Sir, you are such a one stringed violin.
Kevin, Meath| 9.14.09 @ 11:47AM
Afganistan is a nightmare, I think the last ruler to really control it was Alexander.
'America is not an empire. It is the most benevolent global force history has ever seen.'
We could debate about 'neo-colonialism etc but it doesn't really matter, how its percieved by the rest of the world and by the Afghans is whats counts. It also doesn't matter that most Aghans would prefer 'American' ideas to the Taliban (who in their right mind wouldn't?), the average person is going to listen to who has the gun and who is going to come in the night, until we can keep the local people safe nothing is going to change.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 11:48AM
I like Obama, Toddlard; if you were president it would be FAR worse.
and, btw (again) if you don't like heat, Toddler, then remove yourself from the vicinity of the kitchen stove.
Common Sense
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 11:55AM
"the average person is going to listen to who has the gun and who is going to come in the night,"
you got it, the bigger gun counts. you, unlike some, have common sense. What will happen in Afghanistan? decent interval, then withdrawal.
But Toddcurd shouldn't be smug; JFK got us into Vietnam. And now Toddtard will write, "whoever said I approve of what JFK did in Vietnam?"
Todd has all his bases covered.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 12:04PM
"Indeed, it was Burke's opposition to the French revolutionaries doing just that that established Conservatism in the first place."
Burke didn't establish Conservatism any more than Madison established America.
Washington 'established' America, at gunpoint, as Ken pointed out.
Who did establish Conservatism? I don't know, but whoever the guy was, he preceded Burke. Perhaps John Pym.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 12:07PM
Toddcurd, a hint for you:
Burke was mostly just an INTELLECTUAL.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 12:12PM
"But Toddcurd shouldn't be smug; JFK got us into Vietnam"
Eisenhower was right on Vietnam. JFK was wrong, as he was about most things, but the bulk of the blame lies with LBJ, a truly sinister all-around monster and war criminal whose Liberal like we were not to see again until George W Bush.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 12:19PM
"Burke was mostly just an INTELLECTUAL."
Perhaps we are speaking of two differnet Burkes. I am speaking of Edmund Burke, the august Conservative statesman and long-time member of Parliament.
"Burke didn't establish Conservatism"
Actually you're right. I worded that poorly. He could more accurately be called the father of modern conservatism, or modern Anglo-American conservatism. See Kirk's The Conservative Mind for more on the subject.
Efrosiniya | 9.14.09 @ 12:21PM
I think Obama must leave Afganistan free.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 12:22PM
"and, btw (again) if you don't like heat, Toddler, then remove yourself from the vicinity of the kitchen stove"
A truly idiotic sentiment that you yourself don't even stand by, which you would know if you had the ability to give it a moment's thought.
"Waaaah ACORN and Obamacare and Marxism and Kenya and Our Freedoms and whatnot waaaaaah"
"if you don't like heat, Fox News viewer, then remove yourself from the vicinity of the kitchen stove"
You get the picture. If not, I can explain further in simpler terms.
JP| 9.14.09 @ 12:26PM
"Imposing ideology at gunpoint is a quintessentially Liberal proposition. Indeed, it was Burke's opposition to the French revolutionaries doing just that that established Conservatism in the first place..."
And it was English Conservatives who fought a bloody 25 year against France, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Englishmen, drained the public coffers, but put an end to the "ideals of the French Revolution". Well, maybe not put a complete end to those notions - Bismarck and von Moltke did that in 1871.
You could say the Englishmen were the first Neo-Conservatives.
JP| 9.14.09 @ 12:35PM
It should also be argued that today's "liberals" are not only at war with today's voters, but the entire history of liberalsim dating back to the Enlightenment. President Obama has nothing in common with FDR or Truman, or JFK. None of these men would have any standing in today's Democratic Party. Perhaps, it is more apt to point out what George Will pointed out in 1981, when he described Ronald Reagan as an FDR Republican; that is, today's GOP is closer in its outlook to the Democratic Party in 1948.
If today's liberals (or progressives) were allowed to be truthful, they would admit they have all kinds of problems not just with the Constitution, but with the American people in general. Today's liberals look at the American voter as someone who must be whipped into shape and dominated. Just ask the NYT's Friedman. He and other liberals get teary eyed when talking about how the CHICOMS get things done.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 12:41PM
"Ronald Reagan as an FDR Republican; that is, today's GOP is closer in its outlook to the Democratic Party in 1948."
You said it, not me.
The major difference between the Democratic Party then and now is its embrace of the social issues that now, to a large extent, define "the left" to many people. In foreign policy, though, the Democrats today embrace the Liberalism of their forbears no less than the Republicans do.
I will say though, JP, it is refreshing - perhaps unprecedented - to read an AmSpec commenter correctly fess-up to his own anti-Conservative Liberalism and the Liberalism of the GOP.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 12:42PM
"And it was English Conservatives who fought a bloody 25 year against France, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Englishmen, drained the public coffers, but put an end to the "ideals of the French Revolution"
Your history is so muddled and confused it's not really worth straightening out. You are right about the GOP being Liberal. Take that accomplishment and pipe down before you tarnish it further.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 12:48PM
"A truly idiotic sentiment that you yourself don't even stand by, which you would know if you had the ability to give it a moment's thought."
Of course I don't stand by it, I'm second rate.
Daphne is 22nd rate. You? who knows with you, Toddy. You're like nailing Jello to the wall. Your main mistake is taking politics too seriously, it's not like chemistry, politics has no real substance. And, besides, intellectuals are tricksters, doesn't matter if it's David Duke or Noam Chomsky, they are trying to sell to you, fob off their intellectual wares. Intellectuals aren't nonprofit charity chiefs. No one is objective, not even those who try to be-- everyone is grinding an ax.
Politics is/are abstract intellectual fodder for second rate philosophers like me; and squishy guys like you, Toddy-boy. We're both losers-- or else we'd be writing for AS, and not merely commenting. Everything outside of spirituality is based on winning and losing;
I don't like it, but I don't make the rules. Those, unlike us, with responsibility, make the rules.
We're all just talking past each other, Toddy, at cross purposes.
JP| 9.14.09 @ 12:53PM
"Your history is so muddled and confused it's not really worth straightening out."
SL Toddard,
Nice dodge. Just post and run. BTW, Wellington and both Pitt the Yonger and Elder were Tories. And it was the Tories who fought both the revolutionaries of France as well as Napolean himself. The war was long, bloody and unpopular with many in the UK.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 12:53PM
we're all going 'round and round in circles, nowhere.
just like life itself.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 12:59PM
"Nice dodge"
Yes, it was a dodge of course. England and the Allies were neocon aggressors, exporting their ideology to France, and Napoleon merely waged a necessary though ultimately futile war of defense against these Jacobin aggressors. The Allies were the revolutionaries, and Napoleon sought to conserve the ancient order.
Your history is spot-on. A+. You are qualified to teach in a public school now.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:03PM
"we're all going 'round and round in circles"
Unlike most of the people here, I don't think you can blame your utter lack of a brain for that. I sense that you KNOW what is going on. You KNOW that you are supporting a Liberal party - and what's more, you don't like it. What is it that keeps you doing it? Is it the appeal of belonging to a Team? Are you that attached to the Good Vs Evil narratives of Sean Hannity and Vince McMahon?
It's a farce, Mr. Brooks. You know it.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:05PM
what I dislike about Toddard is, he would never admit that Jimmy Carter, with the best of intentions, destroyed more lives in four years than George W. Bush could in eight years.
A truly remarkable achievement. Why didn't Carter get a fancy metal trinket for destroying lives from some pompous organization? Maybe an Oscar for Best Performance By A Sucker.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.09 @ 1:06PM
I ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN TODDARD IN THE PUNCH BOWL...
So did you vote in the last election?
Or did you "punish" all of us non communists?
I prefer to described as a "constitutionalist"
You know, George Washington imposed ideology at gunpoint. Another "founder" went after the pirates in Tripoli. (hence the Marine hymn phrase)
Sir, you are such a one stringed violin.
DID YOU VOTE?
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:12PM
"what I dislike about Toddard is, he would never admit that Jimmy Carter, with the best of intentions, destroyed more lives in four years than George W. Bush could in eight years"
Come on. There's far more to dislike about me than my firm grasp on reality.
What estimate do you accept for the amount of civilians killed and displaced in Iraq? Can you honestly pretend - with a straight face - that Carter destroyed more lives so utterly? Hundreds of thousands killed, MILLIONS displaced?
Come on, man. Carter was awful and ineffectual, weak and left-wing. But as far as Liberals go, he's about as good as they ever got.
The worst they got was LBJ, followed by GWB.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:15PM
at least Sean Hannity and Vince McMahon possess some solidity to them, unlike certain squishy progressives who are all over the road. I met Chomsky in '87, his mind was so full of pumped up intellectual mush he could hardly control his temper, with the enormous pressure of the colossal bag of tricks between his ears.
Can't wait 'til Chomsky dies. Imagine the puff-obits:
"this 21st century Einstein, this David, who by speaking truth to power slings stones at the Goliaths..."
"this intellectual
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:18PM
"So did you vote in the last election?"
Sorry, Ken - I voted for Paul in the primary and Bob Barr, whom I despise, in the general. I regret my vote, to be honest, and should have voted for Chuck Baldwin, and if he runs next time I probably will.
If you're not familiar with Chuck Baldwin, just Wikipedia him. You'll find some things there to shriek in hate about, but you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of him not being conservative.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:21PM
"What estimate do you accept for the amount of civilians killed and displaced in Iraq? Can you honestly pretend - with a straight face - that Carter destroyed more lives so utterly? Hundreds of thousands killed, MILLIONS displaced?"
Carter's well-intentioned road-to-hell mismanagement of the Cold War killed millions in Africa; the Mideast, East Asia; Cesspool, I mean, South America; Meso America.
Carter was a nice guy, but like many nice-- whatever "nice" means-- guys, he was a chump.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:24PM
"But as far as Liberals go, he's [Carter] about as good as they ever got."
hilarity to ensue.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:26PM
"at least Sean Hannity and Vince McMahon possess some solidity to them, unlike certain squishy progressives who are all over the road. I met Chomsky in '87, his mind was so full of pumped up intellectual mush he could hardly control his temper"
Cut the crap, man. Anti-intellectualism? Really - that's your stance? You hate... intelligence?
The problem isn't "intellectuals". It's egg-head bureaucrats. There is a serious difference. Noam Chomsky, for all his faults, is a proponent of massively, sometimes universally despised opinions. The man is reviled in many quarters, often and loudly. But there's no doubt he believes these things and is genuine, and that he takes real risks, and that he's profoundly intelligent.
I mean, for all that he's an "anarcho-syndicalist", so I don't recommend the guy as a political leader, but he's very bright, very interesting and his criticisms often have merit.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:29PM
"Carter's well-intentioned road-to-hell mismanagement of the Cold War killed millions in Africa; the Mideast, East Asia; Cesspool, I mean, South America; Meso America."
Why are we even doing this. You don't really believe that. What you're saying is that because Carter wasn't more militarily tough, those people (whomever they are - you name some vaguely communist places and hope the blanks will fill themselves in) died or were repressed or whatever. News flash: even if those people (whomever they are) would have lived had Carter taken action, he still is NOT responsible for their deaths. The Constitution does not make Africans or South Americans or whomever the American president's responsibility.
That is something conservatives used to understand.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:41PM
"But as far as Liberals go, he's [Carter] about as good as they ever got."
"But as far as a wanker in a public movie theater can go, the actor who played Pee Wee Herman was as good wanker as they ever got"
"But as far as teen & pre-teen pajama parties go, Michael Jackson sponsored about as good a party as they ever got."
"But as far as armed robbers in Las Vegas go, OJ Simpson was as good a robber as they get"
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:42PM
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of "damning with faint praise".
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:48PM
"The Constitution does not make Africans or South Americans or whomever the American president's responsibility."
Carter, as Commander-in Chief, was responsible for the wars, all the wars he was involved in, on his watch (or lack thereof).
Carter meant well, leave it at that. If Carter had been any a better person than he was, he would have been taken up to a hill and crucified.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 1:56PM
"Carter, as Commander-in Chief, was responsible for the wars, all the wars he was involved in, on his watch"
OK. I'm with you - I honestly may have missed your point. What wars are you talking about?
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 1:59PM
Todd,
do you know why the hostages in Iran were released in late Jan of '81?
because a competent C. in C. was very soon to be sworn in to office, and the Ayatollah knew it.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 2:04PM
What?! I'm with you in blaming Carter for the death's he incurred in any un-necessary wars he may have launched. Now which American wars are you referring to?
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 2:06PM
I don't want to go into a laundry list of all the proxy wars from '77 to the end of '80;
I just had lunch, and don't want to barf it up by thinking of what a frightful mess Jimmy (with the best of intentions) Carter made. We might have been better off if Congress had paid Carter $50 billion to resign from office; yes, even Mondale could have done better-- he wasn't as nice as Carter.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 2:12PM
Obama can only be exponentially a better president than Carter. Even if Obama deliberately tried to destroy his presidency he could only do better than Carter.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 2:16PM
"Obama can only be exponentially a better president than Carter. Even if Obama deliberately tried to destroy his presidency he could only do better than Carter."
Jesus. You need to barf up all the kool-aid you've ingested, to use a wretched cliche. Carter was ineffectual, but he was not an active monster with rivers of blood on his hands like LBJ, Clinton, Bush and now Obama. He did not spend nearly as much as any of these unpatriotic scumbags, nor did he increase the size and power of the State to the extent they have.
Carter was fun to make fun of and all, but the damage he did is greatly - really, ridiculously - exaggerated in your head. Carter wasn't effective enough to do the amount of damage you attribute to him.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 2:25PM
"so I don't recommend [Chomsky] as a political leader."
Here we are in full agreement. In fact if Chomsky died tonight we'd be better off. I don't hate intellectuals, just the disingenuous sort we are stuck with today. Let's clone Mencken, okay?
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 2:32PM
"Carter wasn't effective enough to do the amount of damage you attribute to him."
The above is like saying,
'James Buchanan wasn't effective enough to help midwife the Civil War.'
'Warren G. Harding wasn't effective enough to be a bad example of a Chief Executive.'
'Nixon wasn't effective enough to attempt to corrupt the Executive Branch.'
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 2:37PM
the greatest hatred I ever witnessed was Chomsky's in '87. I was sitting in a car with him on the way to a lecture, and the hate was like a fog around him.
I asked him if the right wing disliked him; he replied "no, they like me 'cause I'm rich."
He was choking with hate as he said it.
Kevin, Meath| 9.14.09 @ 2:52PM
To move back on task , what the bloody hell are we going to do about Afghanistan? I don't like the idea of deaths and maiming of brave young men and women American, British ,Canadians, Aussie, Dutch ,Polish etc (sorry if I missed out a nation) just to withdraw without achieving anything.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 2:59PM
"To move back on task , what the bloody hell are we going to do about Afghanistan?"
We leave. Now. Mission accomplished. We went in to topple the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, and to destroy Bin Laden. Taliban toppled, bin Laden gone - work's done. Call it a day, send the boys home (all of them, from everywhere outside our borders), divert whatever money we would have used to conquer the Middle East and station them all over the globe to build a border wall across Mexico and if ever Afghanistan threatens our security again we destroy it again.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 3:01PM
"what the bloody hell are we going to do about Afghanistan?"
If we knew, we wouldn't blog at AS, we'd be working at the Pentagon.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 3:03PM
"In fact if Chomsky died tonight we'd be better off. I don't hate intellectuals, just the disingenuous sort we are stuck with today"
That's ridiculous. Chomsky is anything but disingenuous. The man is almost comically sincere. He's a patriot, and an asset - a piercing, insightful critic of Washington regardless of which Welfare-Warfare party is in power. He criticizes *policies*, not *personalities* - that's what makes him legitimate and indispensible, unlike the talk-show elites that the Fox News Right kowtows to. Even when you disagree with him the man has a point and makes it effectively.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 3:05PM
"We leave. Now. Mission accomplished. We went in to topple the Taliban for harboring Al Qaeda, and to destroy Bin Laden. Taliban toppled, bin Laden gone - work's done. Call it a day, send the boys home (all of them, from everywhere outside our borders), divert whatever money we would have used to conquer the Middle East and station them all over the globe to build a border wall across Mexico and if ever Afghanistan threatens our security again we destroy it again."
We all under-estimated Toddard. He has outdone himself.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 3:08PM
"The man is almost comically sincere."
I noticed it in the car in '87; Chomsky exuded the supersane chipperness of the True Nut.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 3:24PM
"I noticed it in the car in '87"
Oh well I stand corrected. Your car ride 22 years ago, with a man you personally despise - I will accept that as damning evidence of course.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 3:33PM
"We all under-estimated Toddard. He has outdone himself."
I know right - it's inconceivable, this idea that we should not conquer and permanently occupy overseas dominions. It's almost like I believe America should not be an Empire or something!
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 3:34PM
"Your car ride 22 years ago, with a man you personally despise."
I liked Chomsky until I met him; at that moment realized that progressives are even more self-deceived than conservatives. A man with illusions is more dangerous than one without.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.14.09 @ 3:36PM
Can Obama Inspire on Afghanistan? In a word NO! His verbal "support" for the war in Afghanistan was merely a political foil to deny that Democrats are -- cowardly appeasers of America’s enemies.
Obama’s main concern is in amassing power to himself and the Democrat party and completing FDR's unfinished dream of an oligarchy of "elites" to rule over America.
Like the majority of Democrats Obama suffers from the same appeasement naïveté that led anti-Semite Jimmy Carter to act as midwife to the current reactionary Iranian theocracy and Bill Clinton to ignore the growing threat of radical Islam that led to 9/11 and our current conflicts.
Fortunately, Obama appears to be as inept and annoying as the failed Jimmy Carter and may be merely another abysmal one term Dem0crat President.
Sadly, as we are witnessing what may be the meltdown of the Obama administration, we have 3 more years to suffer policies that not only weaken our national security, but endanger our economy and lifestyle. Hopefully, a renewed and resurgent GOP will secure enough seats in next years election to reverse or stymie Democrat's schemes for soft despotism in the US.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 3:40PM
"It's almost like I believe America should not be an Empire or something!"
The largest empire ever -- in terms of concentrated tech-driven power-- was Stalin's; and his Cold War corrupted the Free World.
even LBJ was a nun compared to Stalin. Franco and Pinochet were saints compared to Stalin.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 3:42PM
Todd,
social progress is over.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 3:42PM
Hey Mike Tomlinson - the United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.
So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
You must have forgotten to respond in the other thread.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 3:46PM
"social progress is over"
I don't believe any such thing exists, ergo it cannot be "over" IMO. What we have been experiencing is social dissolution - the destruction of our very culture according to the dictates of revolutionary liberalism and the secular corporatist materialists who advance their cause. Big Government and Big Business (the "and" being superfluous - they are really one entity) working together to turn Americans into servile worker-drones incapable of self-sufficiency, resistance, wonder, or the appreciation of beauty and mystery.
JP| 9.14.09 @ 4:04PM
"So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient? "
Well, you got it half right. Said treaties cannot conflict with US laws already on the books. If a UN Treaty called for strict restrictions of free speech and it was passed and signed into law by the Senate and President it would be deemed unconstitutional. The citizens would not be obliged to obey it.
As one Supreme Court Justice famously quipped, "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact."
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 4:20PM
'I don't believe any such thing exists, ergo it cannot be "over" IMO.'
if you don't believe in the existence of the construct called social progress, then substitute the construct of 'neo-liberalism' instead. They are both finished. Where could they go to next?
Soma for all?
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 4:25PM
I don't necessarily reject social progress, however you have to ask:
progress to what?
for whom?
at what pace?
Minarchism, libertopianism, wont fly, because there aren't enough responsible citizens (not to mention non-citizen residents).
Pingback| 9.14.09 @ 5:01PM
The American Spectator : Can Obama Inspire on Afghanistan? | Afghanistan Today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.09 @ 5:24PM
Alan........Turdbowl............will you guys quit the stupid tit for tat?
Alan, sometimes you come up with the brightest darned thoughts. Please don't be distracted by blow-flies. I know, I know...its hard to eat watermelon with your drawers on, but you must TRY!
(and if you have not heard the joke I am sorry, smile)
Michael Tomlinson| 9.14.09 @ 5:53PM
Has salam malakim Toddard.
Can't you give it a rest? I buried your arguments to allow using the UN to interpret US law long ago. We also know you're an Obama toady and apologist. You can masquerade all day as a self-described "conservative," but your MoveOn.org rhetoric and desire to politicize our legal system as a means to attack your political opponents is pure Alinsky.
Now that the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act is law it will govern our interrogation of the Muslim terrorists you defend. Hopefully, one day it will be changed, but until then it is US law, but we don't use it to retroactively to persecute those who worked under different laws or interpretations of the law. Case closed.
If you don't like the American rule of law or legal system then you might prefer living in Cuba, Venezuela or Iran they like you believe in arbitrarily making up "laws" to persecute people who don't agree with them or imprisoning and torturing their political opponents. Speaking of torture your "reasoning" to subvert and twist US law as a political weapon is real torture.
A helpful hint. In your desire to persecute the CIA interrogators or Bush administration personnel you'd appear more judicious if you'd demand investigating Clinton and his administration too since they used and made rendition and enhanced interrogation US policy. Just as they made regime change in Iraq US foreign policy. Selectively using the legal system as a political weapon is pure Alinsky or CAIR thinking at its worst.
You Kossacks need to quit using our Constitution like toilet paper in your partisan with hunts. The Constitution was written to protect Americans from people like you . . .
As for Obama and the war in Afghanistan, in the best Democrat Carter and Clinton tradition, he'll probably embrace defeat to appease the Islamic extremists you so admire and want to protect. That should make you happy. So take your wounded ego and go play with yourself like a good boy.
Father Zossima| 9.14.09 @ 6:16PM
S.L.Toddard wrote: "What estimate do you accept for the amount of civilians killed and displaced in Iraq? Can you honestly pretend - with a straight face - that Carter destroyed more lives so utterly? Hundreds of thousands killed, MILLIONS displaced? "
Toddard is right.
I despised Carter and was sure I would never again see anyone as abysmal in The Oval Office. I was wrong. I worked on Bush's campaigns and now, eight years later, surveying the economy in shambles, the borders unguarded and American blood and treasure breezily poured out onto the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, I can no longer claim the best man won in 2000 and 2004.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 6:20PM
"Alan........Turdbowl............will you guys quit the stupid tit for tat?"
alright;
but if hot Toddy will keep agree to keep his tit away from our faces, then no one will have to tat him.
Nick| 9.14.09 @ 6:20PM
Mr. Brooks,
Congratulations, sir!
You have cracked the veneer of Toddard's "I'm the most conservative person in the WORLD" protestations.
He's a Chomsky lover!
Oh, yes, he added many caveats to cover himself, but you dared to impugn the Great Chomsky, how dare you?
Chomsky is just another anti-any-war, self-hating Jew, socialist. A perfect example of someone so educated, they have become stupid.
No person of the Right would, or should, take his ramblings seriously.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 6:23PM
... it does take two to turdbowl, you know. If Todd keeps an agreement to behave like a gentleman then I'll do the same.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 6:33PM
"I despised Carter and was sure I would never again see anyone as abysmal in The Oval Office. I was wrong. I worked on Bush's campaigns and now, eight years later, surveying the economy in shambles, the borders unguarded and American blood and treasure breezily poured out onto the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, I can no longer claim the best man won in 2000 and 2004."
Bush was no George Washington. However, Carter was down there with Warren G. Harding.
Harding was a great fellow, he just let his wife steer him into the wrong job. She meant well, too. She couldn't have known he was better tending to his mistress than the executive branch.
Again, you tally up the millions killed in the Cold War under 4 years of carter, and the figure is much higher than Afghanistan tally. Bush is down at 34 on my list of potuses; Carter is down near the very bottom. He was TOO nice. If you hire a checkout guy at your supermarket and he gives all the groceries away, how long will you stay in business?
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 6:42PM
"Where could they go to next?"
Why Liberty and Equality, provided by our federal gov't, for poverty-stricken foreigners, of course. You should remember, old boy - you support it.
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 6:49PM
"I buried your arguments to allow using the UN to interpret US law long ago"
No, that is a Straw Man. I have never insisted that we should use "the UN to interpret US law". I can't even imagine what that could mean - flying in UN bureaucrats to legislate? To sit on the Supreme Court? You invented that argument and then shot it down. Admirably, I must say - that argument you manufactured stood no chance. Bravo. But my question is about rather unambiguous US law - specifically Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution (which you pretend to revere). It declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.
So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?
All you need do is answer the question. Do you revere the Constitution, or do you believe we can disregard portions of it - like Article 6 - when it is inconvenient?
S.L. Toddard| 9.14.09 @ 7:43PM
"Again, you tally up the millions killed in the Cold War under 4 years of carter, and the figure is much higher than Afghanistan tally"
Really? What is the figure? To what American wars do you refer?
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.14.09 @ 8:30PM
Congratulations, Turdbowl, you helped elect Obama and crew.
Eat it and enjoy!
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 8:49PM
"Really? What is the figure? To what American wars do you refer?''
We're not supposed to go tit for tat anymore. So best would be if you would kindly study a history of the proxy wars during the Cold War after America withdrew from 'Nam after Watergate.
So the five years from '75- '80.
as C. in C., Carter was responsible for what went on during his watch. or lack thereof. Otherwise how could you hold LBJ and Nixon culpable for an undeclared war such as Vietnam? Korea was also a 'police action.'
there are no genuine international laws.
Reason I go tit and tat is, if you defend Jimmy Carter at a rightwing blog, you are really asking for it.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 9:04PM
dont forget when Afghanistan was invaded originally (excluding the pre-modern invasions): in 1978, while carter was president. The Russians thought,
"ve can risk an invasion wis that guy in the opal office in the Wuss House"
Nick| 9.14.09 @ 10:06PM
Mr. Brooks,
I think you are still being too nuanced for Toddard's feeble mind.
You had just better come out and say EXACTLY what you mean! Ha-Ha!
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 10:50PM
What else to say to him, Nick?
He's got to choose between lib and con, IMO.
A few brilliant people can be both; but even they might become too confused.
Alan Brooks| 9.14.09 @ 10:59PM
"Why Liberty and Equality, provided by our federal gov't, for poverty-stricken foreigners, of course. You should remember, old boy - you support it."
Above is Tarddard's most intriguing post
S.L. Toddard| 9.15.09 @ 7:56AM
"dont forget when Afghanistan was invaded originally (excluding the pre-modern invasions): in 1978, while carter was president."
Um... not by America, Alan. Are you aware that Carter was president of the United States, and not of the Soviet Union?
Father Zossima| 9.15.09 @ 5:22PM
Allan Brooks wrote: "Again, you tally up the millions killed in the Cold War under 4 years of carter, and the figure is much higher than Afghanistan tally. Bush is down at 34 on my list of potuses; Carter is down near the very bottom. He was TOO nice. If you hire a checkout guy at your supermarket and he gives all the groceries away, how long will you stay in business?"
Wait a few years. The full folly of Bush's ineptitude isn't in yet.
Trackback| 10.20.09 @ 11:12AM
fix my credit fast, on fix my credit fast, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
zzx | 7.18.10 @ 10:53PM
wolcome to my website of lebron james shoes