The American Spectator : So Much for the Good War

Text Size

So Much for the Good War

By Brian O'Connell on 9.25.09 @ 6:06AM

While President Obama is expected to call for more troops in Afghanistan, his party is increasingly headed toward the exits.

The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are caught in a political quagmire with respect to the war in Afghanistan. The Washington Post reported on Monday that General Stanley McChrystal has asked Secretary Gates for additional forces to combat the Taliban-led insurgency. Yet, the Democrats in Congress are publicly raising doubts and even urging for a lighter footprint in a conflict that the president has called — in implicit contrast with Iraq — a “war of necessity.”

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on September 16, Senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold raised discussion over whether the military presence in Afghanistan should be scaled back and suggested the current presence was even hurting our security interests. “My primary concern with our current strategy is that our massive military footprint may be breeding militancy in the region,” Feingold pondered. Senator Kerry was skeptical that the current counterinsurgency, intended to protect the Karzai government, was worth continuing if all that needed to be done to promote American interests was to keep al Qaeda out of Afghanistan.

Kerry questioned whether American troops needed to be on the ground promoting the Afghan government. Alluding to the raid and killing two days earlier of Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, suspected leader of the 1998 Embassy bombings in East Africa that killed over 200 people, Kerry said, “We just knocked out a major al Qaeda figure in Somalia without 67,000 troops on the ground.” The implication is that limited American military objectives left in place in Afghanistan should focus on destroying al Qaeda but not regard the Taliban as an enemy worth fighting or the Karzai government as one worth defending.

Other members of Congress have opposed troop increases in Afghanistan due to the failure of the Afghan army to develop and take control of the country. Progress has been lacking as the Afghan government has deteriorated, and the Taliban has gained control of increasing areas of the country. The president’s adopted strategy in March was intended to address this issue, but success has been limited. “We will shift the emphasis of our mission to the training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country,” Obama said in March.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has said that the administration should not send more combat forces until additional Afghan soldiers have been trained. The problem with this position is that building up the Afghan army would require additional American forces that would face combat situations.

As John Nagl, retired Colonel and co-author of The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 16, the size of the Afghan army would need to roughly double to nearly 250,000 along with 150,000 police officers in order for the government to have necessary forces to control the population, along with the help of existing U.S. forces. In order to substantially increase the size of the army, there would need to be an additional “10,000 U.S. advisers and trainers over the course of 2010,” Nagl testified.

The colonel then underscored that many of these trainers would be put in harm’s way and many have already died in combat. Hence, the position that the United States should not deploy additional forces, but still support a counter-insurgency strategy, seems to be inconsistent.

Some Democrats are being even fiercer in their attacks on the president’s Afghanistan escalation and want forces withdrawn. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), who serves as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has said that her group overwhelmingly wants American troops to come home.

“The Progressive Caucus is pretty much together on what is going on in Afghanistan, in being against escalating and in favor of bringing the troops home… we will have to stand up to our own president.”

Several factors seem to account for the position reversal by Democrats in Congress on the Afghanistan War. The fact is that Americans have turned sour on the campaign — a recent CNN poll showed 57% of respondents opposing the war. Reacting to the political pressure, Speaker Pelosi expressed doubts about sending more troops. “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or the Congress,” the speaker said earlier this month. August was the bloodiest month to date for American forces in the Afghanistan War, with 51 American forces killed, with deaths roughly on pace to match those fatalities in September.

The president said on CBS’s Face the Nation that he ordered the 21,000 troop increases to the level of 67,000 Americans “to make sure that we could secure the election.” However, the election results have been widely panned as widespread evidence of electoral corruption by Hamid Karzai allies has surfaced, similar to the methods used by Ahmadinejad forces in the stolen Iranian elections. If the image of the Afghan government continues to deteriorate, calls will increase for troop levels to be scaled down.

The president has re-calibrated some of his rhetoric lately to emphasizing the need for the Afghan mission to fight al Qaeda. However, al Qaeda is not believed to be in Afghanistan.

Without the clear articulation of a mission and strategy in the coming weeks, the president could be in for a rough ride with his own party and antiwar base. Obama will not want to appear soft on fighting terrorism, while many Democrats in Congress will be looking for the exits. The president may try to strike an uneasy balance or rely on the GOP in order to keep the Afghan government from complete collapse.

topics:
Afghanistan War

About the Author

Brian O’Connell is the Collegiate Network fellow at The American Spectator and former editor-in-chief of the Stanford Review.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (70) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

2Anglico| 9.25.09 @ 8:09AM

The people who call Cheney a "chicken-hawk" turn out to be chickens. Make that always have been, always will be.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 8:13AM

"My primary concern with our current strategy is that our massive military footprint may be breeding militancy in the region"

You mean when a massive invasion force conquers and occupies a country and kills thousands of its inhabitants, the survivors may resent it and resist, Senator Feingold? Wow. Who knew?

"Kerry questioned whether American troops needed to be on the ground promoting the Afghan government"

Kerry can question it all he wants. All good Americans know the answer: No. American soldiers swear to defend the American constitution, not the Afghani goverment.

No nation-building. Anyone who believes an Afghani gov't is more important than the lives of our soldiers needs his priorities straightened out.

Ten Megaton| 9.28.09 @ 7:49PM

No swiftboats in Afghanistan.

2Anglico| 9.25.09 @ 10:38AM

When you come across a rat's nest, you kill the rats first. Then you clean up the mess and take steps to be sure no NEW rats move in.
Our Armed Forces swear to defend and protect the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign or domestic. They also swear to OBEY orders.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 10:45AM

Exactly. And since a rabble of Pashtun tribesman in mountain caves on the other side of the globe cannot even remotely threaten our Constitution, there is no need for our military to be doing social work there - "protecting the population" and nation-building.

Finally we agree on something.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 11:46AM

Tell that to the victims of 9/11, the victims of the Cole bombings, the victims of the two African embassy bombings, the victims of the FIRST Twin Tower attacks, the victims of, well, ALL of the Taliban/Al Queda attacks that have been made on Americans and out allies for well over ten years now. Tell them that and let me know how they respond, ok?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 11:51AM

Not one of those attacks imperiled our Constitution. Sorry.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 12:02PM

You're right, they just killed innocent Americans by the thousands!. How can I be so foolish?

BTW, our actions in Afghanistan are Constitutionally authorized responses to those attacks. Have you ever read the Constitution? If so, then you must have read the part where Congress is authorized: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Humm. Offenses against the Laws of Nations. I wonder if you would consider the 9//1 attacks as an Offense against the Laws of Nations? I also wonder if you would consider our actions as a form of punishment for those offenses?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:15PM

"You're right, they just killed innocent Americans by the thousands!. How can I be so foolish?"

I suppose it has something to do with the sorry state of public education. Nevertheless, our Constitution was never imperiled. Sorry.

"BTW, our actions in Afghanistan are Constitutionally authorized responses to those attacks."

I agree that the response was entirely kosher. Where our gov't failed us was in not declaring war after. And then, obviously, by staying there for years and years after the Taliban were scattered and bin Laden gone.

victor| 9.25.09 @ 11:02PM

Forget it Ray, 3000 dead Americans don't mean the same thing to him as it does to us, as he might agree with Stalin who said that one person dead is a tragedy, but 3000 is a statistic. He is so aloof and detached from humanity that we look like ants on a sidewalk. He is so high up in his ivory tower that we aren't real people, but only numbers in an equation. I can only imagine that if someone close to him was in the Towers and died he might say "sorry, your death did not imperil the Constitution."
Probably counseled Dukakis in the debate about his wife.

2Anglico| 9.25.09 @ 11:28AM

You could not be more wrong. There is still a hole in the ground where other cave dwellers took down what they perceived to be the ultimate symbol of American power. These cave dweller's cousins have nukes and their illegitimate step-children are working on them. Nukes ARE a threat to America and thus to the constitution.
And they will have NO qualms using them.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 11:47AM

Those were not Pashtun tribesmen, they were largely Saudis, I believe. They attacked from inside our own nation. No nation-building mission in Afghanistan would have prevented that. There is too much earth for us to conquer it all and make the whole of it terrorist-proof - we conquer Afghanistan, they will pop up somewhere else, multiplied due to our consistently playing the invader and conqueror of Bin Laden's propaganda. Only immigration restriction could have prevented that attack - restrict immigration from muslim countries and seal the border with Mexico, and the GOP refused to do that.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 11:55AM

"No nation-building mission in Afghanistan would have prevented that."

Oh, really? then explain to us all how Germany, who also conducted attacks inside America prior to declaring war against us in 1942, has never attacked us since we defeated their dictatorship form of government and installed a democratically elected government in it's place.

You may have forgotten, but we've been at peace with Japan and Germany for well over 60 years now, all because we removed an Imperial government and a Dictatorship and installed our own type of Democracy. Oh, and left troops behind to insure our interests are protected and out security assured. Care to explain this little inconvenience to your argument?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:00PM

Because Germany and Japan are in no way analagous to the warlike tribes of Afghanistan, who have never had a stable government and never formed one cohesive people.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 12:07PM

You may believe that, but you're wrong. Each "tribe' believes themselves to be sovereign, be a type of country in their own right. That have their own borders , their own leaders, their own laws, and their own military. How is that any different from Germany and Japan prior to WWII?

Also, you seem to be forgetting that, prior to our "invasion" Afghanistan was ruled by a SINGLE government. It was that government that supported and protected al quada.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:12PM

"You may believe that, but you're wrong. Each "tribe' believes themselves to be sovereign, be a type of country in their own right. That have their own borders , their own leaders, their own laws, and their own military. How is that any different from Germany and Japan prior to WWII? "

Well, for starters neither Germany nor Japan were populated by tribes who each had their own borders , their own leaders, their own laws, and their own military. From there I suppose you could compare the wildly different cultures, religions, traditions, terrains and levels of cultural sophistication. Really, they are so fundamentally different that there's almost no need to point that out.

"Also, you seem to be forgetting that, prior to our "invasion" Afghanistan was ruled by a SINGLE government."

Not in the way that ours is, or that Germany was, or that Japan was. Sorry - you're simply wrong.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 12:26PM

You still don't get it, do you? These "tribes don't consider themselves to be a part of a single country. They consider themselves to be countries in their own right. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:45PM

Precisely - unlike Germany and Japan, Afghanistan is populated by warlike tribes who "don't consider themselves to be a part of a single country" but instead "consider themselves to be countries in their own right". It has always been that way. Because of that, our attempts to build a stable and cohesive nation will fail - we have been there for 8 long years, America - the most powerful nation in the world, and we have still failed to transform the country. We have scattered the Taliban and ousted bin Laden. That was our reason for going there, and it was a realistic goal for our military. Protecting the population and building a nation is NOT.

Not one more American soldier should die building the Afghans a nation.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 12:28PM

"Not in the way that ours is, or that Germany was, or that Japan was"

Tell that to the Taliban whoe ruled all of Afganstan, not just one or two "tribes."

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 11:59AM

From today:

"KABUL, Afghanistan — A roadside bomb and assault-rifle fire killed four United States soldiers and a Marine in three different attacks in southern Afghanistan, where new American brigades are pressing offensives against a resilient and dug-in Taliban and other insurgents.

The attacks on Thursday in Zabul and Nimruz Provinces pushed the number of American military deaths in Afghanistan to 218 this year, already 41 percent more than in all of 2008. The soaring toll, coupled with the Taliban’s growing strength and fears that the Aug. 20 Afghan presidential election may have been rigged in favor of President Hamid Karzai, have stirred increasing opposition in the United States to further troop deployments."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09.....fghan.html

That's after we've been there for eight long years. Our soldiers are still getting slaughtered trying to somehow turn mountainous, inhospitable Afghanistan into a stable nation. Those men are DEAD because of this insistence on nation-building, when they could be alive and home with their families, ready to defend our Constitution.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 12:23PM

What is your suggestion for an alternative. Remove our troops and ignore the problem in hopes that it goes away? That doesn't work. We ignored the problem throughout the 90's and look what happened; we were attacked again and again. So, tell me, what should we do? Let ourselves be attacked?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 12:38PM

"What is your suggestion for an alternative. Remove our troops and ignore the problem in hopes that it goes away?"

The problem will not "go away", regardless of whether we stay or not in Afghanistan. If we stay in Afghanistan the problem will still exist but our soldiers will be killed every day. If we leave the problem will still exist, but our soldiers, equipment and money will be ready for when we need them, in America. If we ever deem Afghanistan an imminent threat again - and they are demonstrably not one now - we return and destroy them.

In the meantime, build a border fence with Mexico and restrict immigration from the 3rd world generally and muslim countries specifically, and continue intensive intelligence gathering.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 1:01PM

So, you believe it's better for innocent Americans to die rather than risk the deaths of people who are trained to defend themselves? That's just stupid!

It the type of attitude that will get thousand more innocent Americans killed. It's obvious that you really don't care what happens to ordinary, innocent Americans when the threat is external. You're an isolationist, just like several "powerful" members of the Democratic party. Thankfully, people like you don't have as much power as you think, for We, the People, recognize those external threats and We, the people, will not allow those threats to continue unabated. We, the people, in the form of the all-volunteer military, are ready, willing, and able to meet those threats wherever they exist. We, the People are there, right now, insuring that innocent Americans will not die here at home

Instead of pretending that you CARE about those troops by claiming they'd be safer here at home, you should CELEBRATE the fact they they are ready, willing, and able to meet those threats overseas, that they are willing to die so that you may be safe.

But you don't really care about those troops, do you? You only care about yourself, about your own fears. You're afraid of the people who attack Americans but are unwilling to admit that this threat MUST be eliminated. You think that we should ignore this threat, so you don't have to feel afraid any more.

You're a child, hiding under the covers because you're afraid of what's out there in the dark. Grow up, child, and face your fears. Grow up, child, and peel away those covers. Grow up, child, and admit that there is a threat. For if you don't, you'll find that threat crawling under the covers to attack you, just like it did on 9/11.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 1:46PM

"So, you believe it's better for innocent Americans to die rather than risk the deaths of people who are trained to defend themselves"

Of course not. There is no evidence that bringing out troops home now will cause "innocent people to die". You believe it is worth having our soldiers slaughtered to try to build a stable nation in Afghanistan. That is how we differ - I value our soldiers higher than I value Afghans.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 1:53PM

"But you don't really care about those troops, do you? You only care about yourself, about your own fears"

My god - how ironic. The guy who insists our soldiers be in harms way, who demands they be placed where they will be killed because he is shivering in terror about Pashtun tribesmen in mountains on the other side of the world thinks *I* am afraid.

Friend, YOU are the one who's scared of big bad Islamofascists. I think they are a joke. The worst they can do is kill some of us. The worst waging waging this failure of a war will do is further erode our constitutional republic.

Terrorists represent a rather minor threat to our safety. Allowing our gov't to wage endless war poses a MAJOR threat to our constitutional system of government and way of life. Americans cherish their liberties over their lives. Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Your motto seems to be "Make me safe at whatever cost, Daddy State, for I am a coward in need of coddling".

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 2:34PM

The enemy approaches! Recall the troops! Raise the Causeway! Lower the Gates! Man the Parapets! A nice medieval strategy that never worked.

This is what you're proposing, recalling the troops to strengthen ouu borders. Turn America in Fortress America. That's a strategy that doesn't work. As a matter of fact, it's doomed to failure. Sure, the people inside the fortress feel secure, but as the battle of Troy teaches us, the enemy will always find a way inside. Once inside, it's good-by fortress, hello entrapment.

I thank God that people like you are not in charge. for if you were, we'd be living in a medieval nightmare were the appearance of security is more important that the actually of security.

Do you know who people defeat a threat? The defeat them not by hiding behind the ramparts, they defeat them by driving a threat back to it's point of origin and destroying it. That's the only strategy that works. But feel free to hide behind your ramparts, feel free to revel in the illusion of security. Thankfully, you're not in charge of security.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 2:47PM

"Allowing our gov't to wage endless war poses a MAJOR threat to our constitutional system of government and way of life"

Right, tell that to the people who fought in the Revolutionary War. Tell that to the people who fought in the Civil War. Tell that to the people who fought in WWI. Tell that to people who fought in WWII. And tell that to the people who are fighting in Afghanistan toady. Ask THEM if their actions are a threat to our Constitution. But you won't, will you? And do you know why? Because you're afraid of the answer. They are PROTECTING us AND our government, no matter how badly you want to believe otherwise

Yo use the Constitution as a prop, hiding behind it because you can't admit that some battles are fighting, some wars are worth winning. But that's ok, for people like myself, people who actually served in the military, people who are willing to fight and die, anywhere i the world, for your safety, will always be there to protect you from your own ignorance, your own cowardliness

You are a coward, plain and simple. But that's ok, for this is America and we protect our cowards as well as our heroes.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 3:14PM

"Right, tell that to the people who fought in the Revolutionary War."

Uh...

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied : and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, 1790 (a few years after the Revolutionary War)

That perpetual war is a danger to our constitutional government is hardly some wild new proposition I personally invented. That you find the idea so alien is merely evidence of your own staggering ignorance. I'm sorry, but you really should better acquaint yourself with the history and founding principles of this country.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 3:23PM

"They are PROTECTING us AND our government, no matter how badly you want to believe otherwise"

My. You really are a simple one. I did not say - and do not believe - that our *military* is a threat to constitutional government, I merely note that a permanent state of *war* is. There is a profound, categorical difference between the two that you would do well to try and understand.

Spicy Joker| 9.25.09 @ 12:26PM

The liberals lied when they said they opposed the war in Iraq but supported the war in Afghanistan. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid used this bait-and-switch to trick independents. Now the liberals are pretending that the Taliban never allowed Al Qaeda to operate terrorist training camps or hide in the mountains. Instead, the liberals are claiming we can withdraw from Afghanistan - the country we invaded because of 9/11 - without any serious damage to our reputation or security.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 12:49PM

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and other like Kerry, are all isolationists. They are afraid of the rest of the world and want us to ignore it, in hopes that this will alleviate their fears. This is why they protest American involvement in international affairs. They don't want our military to be deployed anywhere but in America. They want to impose restrictions on international trade. They oppose international businesses. And they absolutely refuse to admit that there are actually threats outside our boarders. To them, all threats are internal. To them, it's the "Neo-Nazies" who threaten us. It is the "right wing" fanatics who threaten us. It is the international businesses who threaten us. It is the political opposition right here at home who threaten us. To these people, ALL threats are internal. There are no external threats..

This is the same attitude that permeated American politics after WWI and look what that attitude brought the world. Tens of millions dead, America attacked, and still the isolationists thought the greatest threats were internal, hence the Japanese-American internment camps were established.

It is this isolationist attitude that is actually the biggest threat to our security, for to ignore a threat simply because it is external is to invite disaster, as history has shown us time and time again.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 2:01PM

"Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and other like Kerry, are all isolationists."

That is not so much ridiculous as shockingly ignorant. Either you don't know what "isolationism" means, or you don't know who "Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, and... Kerry" are. The idea that any of them have a non-interventionist bone in their body is laughable. It would be like me saying "Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld are all pacificsts." It's not a matter of opinion, it's simply wrong. Incorrect.

Ray| 9.25.09 @ 2:38PM

"That is not so much ridiculous as shockingly ignorant."

So says the Village Idiot who doesn't believe that the people who are avowed enemies of the Great Satan (you know, America) and have repeatedly stated their fevered desire to "kill Americans where ever they are" are an actual threat.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 3:18PM

That's what we in the thinking business call a "straw man". I've never asserted that terrorists are not "an actual threat". You'll really have to do better than that if you hope to hold up your end of this "debate".

victor| 9.25.09 @ 10:10PM

No, you said that they were a minor threat and not much to be worried about.
Just because a scorpion is small doesn't mean it is not a threat to your safety.

Dustoff| 9.25.09 @ 4:55PM

S.L. Toddard
++++++++++++++
Are YOU trying to say the Dem party well do anything about the border with Mexico or Canada.

Talk about dense. Let's try the 1980 with second border bill that was passed and the dem's never funded it. Can you show me or anyone else that the dem's will do zip about the border? They hated the fence in CA, AZ, TX.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 6:07PM

In today's news Obama is cutting 384 agents from the Mexican border. More destruction. This man is Hell bent on ruining us.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 6:15PM

'Are YOU trying to say the Dem party well do anything about the border with Mexico or Canada'

Absolutely not. No one will, until we force the GOP, with our votes, to embrace Conservatism again.

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 5:34PM

What is so incredibly ODD is that there is not one conservative voice who can even for a SECOND acknowledge that Obama is defying the mood of his party and especially his base by "staying the course" in Afghanistan.

Would it be too much to ask that you for one MINUTE set aside the bigoted slanders and paranoid accusations to acknowledge that the president is making the right decision for his country against his own political interests?

Yes -- I know, I know. That would be too much like civility for your tastes.

Face it: reactionaries have opted out: they are the barbarians at the gate, not the loyal opposition.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 6:13PM

He's defying the sane wing of his party, perhaps = those civil libertarians who, along with the alt-right, deplored Bush's constitution-trampling and aggressive military policies. But he promised to escalate Afghanistan and received overwhelming Democratic support. He is doing what he promised, I mean to say - it's not as though he's betraying his supporters, as he did on FISA, on the restoration of the Rule of Law, on bringing accountability to Washington, on ending the Bush domestic spying regime, on abandoning Bush's p0licy of abusing the State Secrets privilege, or on his promise that our court system would be used to try terrorists caught off the battlefield.

The anti-war left, which was so vocal during Bush's regime, has largely gone silent vis a vis Obama's war to turn Afghanistan into Arkansas.

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 6:22PM

The fact is we're IN Iraq and Afghanistan. Say what you will. We're there and we can't get out.

We have a responsibility to the peoples of those countries and to our own soldiers to see to it that these countries stabilize and can govern themselves when we leave.

Like it or not, this means soldiers in country and this means "nation building."

You cannot defeat the Taliban with drones and missile strikes from the Indian Ocean. It just simply cannot be done. And as events this week have shown, Al Quaeda, while drastically weakened, is not dead, and they intend further attacks inside the United States.

Obama's right basically to carry on Bush's policies, although he needs to keep reviewing them and consulting with the commanders on the ground.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 6:35PM

"The fact is we're IN Iraq and Afghanistan. Say what you will. We're there and we can't get out."

Neocon nonsense. We could leave today.

"We have a responsibility to the peoples of those countries"

Yes we owe it to them to conquer and civilize them. I believe that's called the "White Man's Burden". I'm just surprised to see that you subscribe to that notion.

"and to our own soldiers to see to it that these countries stabilize and can govern themselves when we leave."

How we owe that to our soldiers is beyond me. What we owe our soldiers is to use them for the purpose they're intended - to support and defend the Constitution. America faces no threat from Afghanistan - we destroyed what threat there was, and then didn't leave. We have no obligation to create a stable nation where none has ever stood before.

"You cannot defeat the Taliban with drones and missile strikes from the Indian Ocean. It just simply cannot be done."

There is no need to defeat the Taliban any further than we already have. They are a warlike, tribal people with no army or navy. There is simply no way to conquer enough of the globe so that we eradicate "terrorist safe-havens". Slogging it out for another decade until we have a puppet government that can imitate a real one won't change that.

"And as events this week have shown, Al Quaeda, while drastically weakened, is not dead, and they intend further attacks inside the United States."

Even after nearly a decade of war against them. It's almost as if our being in the Middle East, our conquering and slaughtering Muslims makes them angry and want to kill us. Go figure.

Obama's right basically to carry on Bush's policies, although he needs to keep reviewing them and consulting with the commanders on the ground.

victor| 9.25.09 @ 10:07PM

This proves what a phony and pointy headed intelectual you are.
There is no bigotry or paranoia in our objections to the man in the White House.
It is his philosophy and ideas about government and the Constituiton that we object to.
The fact that he is of mixed race is irrelevant and that you are too obtuse to admit it.
He's "defying " nothing and is deliberately losing Afghanistan by his inactions.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 5:59PM

Ms. Toddard/Liberal Reader,
Do you work for Hilary Clinton in the State Dept.? Or just some scuzzy Leftist Blog somewhere in the stratosphere? You are a liar and have no regard for the truth. You come in here on your lofty high horse pretending to argue for the single purpose of then, when some good man or woman chooses to engage you seriously, you insult, demean and degrade them to no end. I suggest you take your trolling self (or in your case, selves) somewhere else because eventually we will all know who you are and what you (don't) stand for, and will no longer engage you.
Bye now.

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 6:17PM

Margie --

Speaking only for myself, I've told you before I don't have any interest in further exchanges with you.

The reason for this is that you NEVER engage in debate. You NEVER offer arguments or anything approaching coherent reasoning. You ONLY engage in relentless, obnoxious, hateful, and, in the end, really boring ad hominem attack. I have no once seen you engage anyone in actual political debate. So, you can say anything you like about me: you can call me a "fascist," a "pervert" -- or whatever your mean little nasty heart desires. I just don't care. I've had enough.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 6:39PM

All very true. LR and I agree on some things and disagree on others. For instance, he is a bloodthirsty warmonger, and I like football.

That was a joke.

Margie is the sort of doofus that is all too common on this site. They will hop in to a discussion, hurl an insult, spew out a talking point that they don't understand - perhaps about "appeasement", or "American exceptionalism", or "moral relativism" - and that's it.

To be honest, I'm not sure if she's even smart enough to understand that those aren't actual arguments. For all I know she is in grade school and play-acting at being an adult.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 7:37PM

Dearest Troll one in the same,
You are still a liar. You continue to lie and I will continue to say so.
Get used to it.

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 7:54PM

^^ Case in point. Does she think that's an argument? I can't tell. It's fairly clear that the "opinions" she holds are emotion-driven, not reason-driven. She's insecure about America, so she embraces "American exceptionalism" because it makes her feel good to think America's "the best". She doesn't know what "the best" is supposed to mean. It's as substantive a claim as "We're #1!"

As I said in another thread, I feel sorry for those who are so insecure about their country, who have so little patriotism, who love their country so little that they constantly need reassurance that America is "the best".

I suppose I can't blame you for not loving your country, Marge, considering the way it has acted over the last couple decades, but try to focus on the founding and the Constitution - read about those great men, and I guarantee you will find something to love about America, and you won't be so desperate for reassurance. There is still much that is great about America - just do a little work and I promise you'll find it.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 9:55PM

Dear Ms. Troll,
You will continue to prove the liar that you are. Don't you realize that no one believes you?

victor| 9.25.09 @ 10:13PM

Not only does no one believe him, you should read what others say about him.
Truly shocking.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 10:37AM

Poor little girl. You're still doing it. And now you've misused the word "lie". To "lie", young lady, is to intentionally tell a falsehood. Since I've never done that here, and since you cannot point out even one "lie" that I've told, you should really refrain from using the word.

Honestly - you should refrain from posting here entirely, and not come back until after you've passed through middle and high school and seen something of the world. I guarantee it will give you some perspective, and if ever you revisit your comments here you will blush from embarrassment.

I wish you the best of luck in your journey from adolesence to adulthood.

Magie| 9.26.09 @ 2:52PM

Dear Ms. waterless cloud, (Toddard)
You get to define no one. God gets to do that. Do you know Him? He's the One who made you. The One you'll have to stand before for lying about His people. Ready for that?

CopyKatnj| 9.25.09 @ 8:25PM

Did anyone really believe the Democrats when they said they supported the troops and not the war or that Iraq was the wrong war?

Until Kerry releases his FULL military records, he can not be believed.

Leonard Henry| 9.25.09 @ 9:44PM

Where is Neville Chamberlain when we need him?

Pingback| 9.26.09 @ 11:20AM

Obama will Never Use US Military Against Iran to stop NUKES; Places Own Political Age links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Hussein Obama! mmm mmm mm __________________________________________________ Additional Reading… Hot Air: Iran: Why aren’t you congratulating us for our transparency? American Spectator: So Much for the Good War Sister Toldjah: “Non-threatening” Iran reveals second uranium enrichment plant American Power: Obama at U.N.: Disastrous Agenda The Foundry: Iran Nuclear Revelations Expose Continued Iranian Lies…

John Nampion | 9.27.09 @ 12:46PM

Didn't Rumsfeld also want a "lighter footprint" in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Wasn't he mocked for believing that the military of the future would be smaller and more mobile?

At least he really did see it as a strategy...as opposed to the Democrats, who are just using "lighter footprint" as code for "Let's leave now!"

We ran from our commitment to the Afghans in the 1980's - we folded up and forgot all about them as soon as the Ruskies cleared out...looks like we're gonna do it again.

If we really want to engage with Muslims who COULD become our allies, this is NOT the way to do it.

Tenn Slim| 9.28.09 @ 4:46AM

ALL
As a Cold War Warrior, I offer this Opine
bt
1. The Generals have tossed grenade into the OBNA camp. The released report, "More troops, now, or failure," is the equivalent of Mac Arthur saying to Truman, A now win policy is certain to fail.
2. OBNA Lefties are torn. Read the sites, CPUSA, Democratic Strategy, Code Pink. Universally, "Abandanon the wars, per se" and to H... with the after effects. Spend the DOD money on us." On this Left hand, come home. On the Right hand, reality, hard nosed reality.
3. Obama is NOT debating what to do, HE is waiting for his Podesta led Hierarchy to TELL him what to do. Check his schedule. Seldom if ever is he in the Oval Office, actually governing the USA.
4. We know the realtiies. If Afghanistan falls, our entire presence in the "Stans Mid and Far East" is out. Never again will the West get a foot hold into thier culture. We have betrayed thier trust. To these folks honor is above all else.
5. The Left wants us home, isolated, GDP delpleted, a continuing crisis at home, so that the agendas can be fulfilled. W/O a home crisis, the issues cannot be implemented. W/O funding the agendas remain just that, ideas of failured. The Left will have to have funds (DOD), an isolated citizenery, and a manageable crisis in order to gain what they have waited for, since 1930.
end
Semper FI
bt
Expect the 3 Generals that tossed this grenade to retire within the year.
end

www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 9:38PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

lay123 | 4.4.10 @ 12:50AM

Specific ingredients: clothing, accessories, and shoes, but most recently handbags have
become a cornerstone to the aura that is mainstream fashion www.handbagshunting.com

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats