The American Spectator

Michel Gourd| 8.2.10 @ 7:05AM

The U.S.-led coalition is actually launching its most critical military operation of the nine-year war in Afghanistan. The results of this offensive will be known in some weeks. Contrary to what is actually in some media, things are not going so bad on the ground. In fact, there are signs that Petraeus strategy is gaining momentum. Taliban recently suffered a lot of casualties and are very badly damaged. General David Petraeus "counterinsurgency guidance" allocates NATO funds more responsibly. Every detail his look at and it show.

S. Ruger| 8.2.10 @ 10:59AM

Not many of us doubt that our ground forces can win the day in open battle against any and all scruffy Taliban or Al Qaeda contingents. Babbin's article is questioning what we do -- or try to do -- the next day, the next month, the next decade, the time periods over which nations must be built and kept whole. That's where we're up a creek without a paddle, and where maybe the neocons should hand the map over to someone with a more conservative approach.

Toolbag| 8.2.10 @ 12:24PM

The only reason the Taliban have recently suffered a large amount of losses was due to the kidnapped sailors. During that event units were given leeway to clean house in Logar province. That is not standard operating procedure in Afghanistan. Every operation has to be approved by the Afghan government. This opens it up to compromise. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are not allowed to fight. An award called the Courageous Restraint Medal was recently proposed. This award is for instances where a soldier decides not to shoot somebody or not to act. What is next Superb Surrender, Righteous Retreat. This "hugs not drugs" policy will not work in Afghanistan. Also this business of removinga safe haven for AQ is also dishonest. Even if we were to physically remove every human being from Afghanistan AQ would still have a safe haven...in Pakistan.

S.L. Toddard| 8.2.10 @ 5:52PM

Not so bad, eh? We pretty close to establishing a US-friendly democracy there? A beacon of freedom?

Come on, man. We can't fix the problems until we identify them, and one of them is the Big Gov't foreign policy of Bush-Obama style liberals.

T1Brit| 8.2.10 @ 7:37AM

It is as simple as this:

In order for a war to be won and for it to end, there has to be a shared understanding between the two sides of what constitutes a win.
The Taliban definition of winning is simply to continue to exist and continue fighting, no matter what, until the end of time.
The Allied definition is to massacre and drive back the Taliban, whilst setting up some kind of modern state in their place.
According to this definition, the Allies have 'won' in Afghanistan many times over. Yet the war does not end. Why?
Because the Taliban have also won, are winning.
It is a war that cannot be won - according to the meaning of the word as we understand it.

T1Brit| 8.2.10 @ 7:42AM

p.s. That doesn't mean that it should not be fought.

It's like a war on crime, or poverty.

Old Soldier| 8.2.10 @ 7:59AM

We lost those wars.

Red Phillips| 8.2.10 @ 7:50AM

"Neocons -- according to an August 2003 Weekly Standard article by the late Irving Kristol, credited as the godfather of neoconservatism -- define themselves differently from traditional conservatives."

Ain't that the truth. Now if we could just get the movement cons who have allowed themselves to be neoconized to recognize that.

S.L. Toddard| 8.2.10 @ 5:56PM

Movement conservatives who hold identical views to the Neoconservatives do not accept that there is a difference even when the Neoconservatives themselves acknowledge it.

Red Phillips| 8.2.10 @ 8:50PM

The fact that a certain segment of "conservatives" are starting to recognize that neocons are a categorically different thing is a positive development. But while these factions may differ in primary motivation (security vs. spreading democracy) they share important things in common. Both have an irrational fear of the threat posed by Islam, and both believe reflexive bellicose interventionism is the only workable option. So they end up seeing pretty much eye-to-eye on policy. This new trend of seeing the neoconservatives as the other is a lot of hindsight scapegoating. They were all singing the same tune during the war fever that swept the “right” after 9/11.

The only truly conservative position is non-interventionism. Until folks like Mr. Babbin realize that, we will continue to have a phony right supporting perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Melvin| 8.2.10 @ 7:54AM

If a government proceeds with nation building, it has to be prepared to stay in a country for generations, till succeeding generations of illiterate tribal thinking is replaced by succeeding generations of an educated populace that moves from clan type thinking to nation type thinking.
India, and the Philippines are good examples of this.
Afghanistan can be successful if we as a Country are willing to expend mean, women, and material for 50 to a 100 years. And even this is marginal at best, there are no guarantees.

Old Soldier| 8.2.10 @ 8:04AM

I'm not a neo-con but let's be honest - we are 1 for 2 in recent nation-building efforts. The real question is - "Is there a nation to build, or more accurately, to rebuild?" In Iraq and Iran, yes. In Afghanistan, no.

Somehow we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and allowed our scope to creep out of control in Afghanistan. We invited the Karzai brothers in and tied out fortunes to theirs. I don't understand why.

Melivn| 8.2.10 @ 8:30AM

Correctamundo Old Soldier. Living in Camp Lejeune I have been afforded the chance to hear various conversation with soldiers, soldiers who turned private contractor and Marines who all basically feel and state, "The Mayor of Kabul, and his relatives are the single greatest impediment for Afghanistan to get out of the funk that it is in.
Bottom line Karzi is bad juu juu.

canuckistani| 8.2.10 @ 5:35PM

After all this time we still don't understand why Karzai is in office?
Try this: Unocal rep, ex-insurance salesman. Gasline from Turkmenistan to Quetta in Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Karzai was in the pockets of the Taliban, US oil interests and many suspect, Delhi during those negotiations in 1997 to 99.
I spoke off the record with a US-Pakistani attache 7 years ago doing business here: "He's the little f-er on his Vespa scooter who's no more than the mayor of Kabul...."
We had the chance to punt him in last election, but he is the useful idiot the Oil interests want, so the US tows the line. Our troops and reputation suffer for it.
What else do you need to know?

S.L. Toddard| 8.2.10 @ 6:00PM

In Iraq and Iran, yes

Iran has been civilized since before European history started. There is already a nation there - no need to build a new one (unless of course we plan on blasting apart that nation and hundreds of thousands of its people into bloody horror).

Old Soldier| 8.3.10 @ 7:46AM

Nope. But a little regime change would be nice. We should be helping the process along - not proping up the tyrants.

Curly Smith| 8.2.10 @ 8:27AM

To understand why nation-building fails, cast your eyes toward Washington. If our enlightened leaders will do anything to remain in power then why wouldn't the same hold true for unenlightened leaders? The thrust behind nation-building is that the leaders have the best interests of their people at heart... that's not true with our "Ruling Class" so why should it be true elsewhere?

A "rebuilt" nation will have a drastically different power dynamic. While it's true that Afghanistan and Iraq are proxy wars, like Vietnam, it's also true that the ongoing conflict serves to maintain the power status quo. The "rebuilt" nation will take power away from the tribal leaders and the mullahs and give it to somebody else. Picture Robert Byrd in a turban and you'll understand why the effort is largely futile.

S.L. Toddard| 8.2.10 @ 6:10PM

To understand why nation-building fails, cast your eyes toward Washington

It is not hyperbole to ask how we hope to build a functioning democracy in Iraq when we do not possess a functioning republic here at home. It really isn't. The line about the mote in thy brother's eye is perfectly appropriate. It is one thing to identify enemies to destroy and destroy them, and quite another to believe government can and should build a new US-friendly democratic nation from nothing in the Middle East, where we have recently killed hundreds of thousands of people. A fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe that gov't exists to restructure society towards an ideal - that is the impetus behind gov't healthcare, medicare/aid, affirmative action, social security, race-based preferences, welfare, even environmental legislation (depending on the advocate), and conservatives do not. Yet that is precisely the role neoconservatives wish gov't to play, especially in foreign policy - to restructure whole societies, to destroy and rebuild whole nations according to their ideal. Conservatives traditionally recognized such naive faith in the transformative powers of gov't to be pure, unadulterated folly.

And they were right.

Andy Pryzant| 8.2.10 @ 7:43PM

Nation building is an hubris of Liberal ideology and our neocons are still liberals as far as the belief that spreading "American Democracy" around the world is a reasonable outcome of foreign affairs. This is actually ideological thinking masquerading as a policy.

bluecollarbytes| 8.2.10 @ 8:43AM

In some ways, I believe Bush actually acted according to how he felt the world was, not how he might change it. Bush did not want to alienate Arab oil producers, who can be quite 'touchy' about any reference to Islam outside of 'the religion-o-peace' nonsense.

Speaking from my observer's seat, I thought Bush's failure to call a pig a pig after 9/11 one of his biggest mistakes on the world stage. We're now stuck fighting "terrists", who surely must be simply perverting a great religion/political system.

Ryan| 8.2.10 @ 8:45AM

First off, I completely disagree with neocon domestic policy on spending. It's just another Keynesian thought process, and bends DC toward corporatism.

I DO support an aspect of nation-building, but it must be done properly.

Without any mention of using overwhelming force to accomplish nation-building, I think the article has it partially wrong.

I am in full support of creating democracies abroad. When done properly - see Japan and Germany - it works.

Unfortunately, it requires the use of overwhelming force to press down - with no uncertain terms - those elements that seek to undermine efforts of democracy.

Modern politics considers itself too humane to accomplish such a task. We tend more toward "proportional force."

We see some of what we should have done in the beginning with the successful surge in Iraq; I suspect we'll see something similar in Afghanistan (Petraeus also is allowed to take a few gloves off).

JimH| 8.2.10 @ 9:25AM

Japan and Germany were established nations with functioning government structures recognized by their populations. Things lacking in Afghanistan. If we wish to bring democracy to some benighted locale, maybe we could start closed to home; somewhere like Chicago.

Ryan| 8.2.10 @ 1:38PM

Not so much. Some of the structures were there, but there was a lot of ground-up rebuilding that had to take place as well.

A good parallel may be Iraq here. Similar circumstances.

Your point is partially made, though.

Warrior| 8.2.10 @ 10:38AM

Who are we to impose our values in nation building? This is just another form of tyranny. The sponsors of terrorism only need to see one mushroom cloud and they will leave the giant alone.

scotchieguy| 8.2.10 @ 12:19PM

You can't be serious. You actually want to nuke the terrorists? Where? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran? How about we blast those three countries off the face of the earth. What's to say terrorsits won't pop up in, say, Syria...or Somalia? Of course the radiation might be a bit of a problem.

Ryan| 8.2.10 @ 1:37PM

We're the USA. We're the longest-lived modern democracy.

Democracies are peaceful, and don't attack each other. It's not tyranny to establish a non-puppet government abroad, to bring freedom and human rights to others.

Sponsors of terrorism don't care about lives lost. Never did, and never will.

Occam's Tool| 8.2.10 @ 4:51PM

We impose our values because they are BETTER than the enemies' values, as we did with Japan and Germany. That being said, the successful nation-building that occurred in those two countries occurred after the reigning ideologies were beaten to a pulp. Political Islam is the new ideology that needs to be beaten to a pulp.

Reality| 8.2.10 @ 6:32PM

Right on!!!! We can produce bullets and bombs faster than they can produce terrorists. Blow them all to ashes.

Conan the Contrarian| 8.2.10 @ 8:54AM

Islam is the problem. One cannot nation-build, i.e., institute a democracy in a Muslim country, not for very long anyway. It will deteriorate into a reign of a strong-man. This is true with very few exceptions. I like John Derbyshire's policy for Afghanistan and Iraq: "Rubble . . . and out". Now that is a clear cut plan for victory.

Reality| 8.2.10 @ 6:34PM

Destroy Islam...destroy the problem!

Louis Jenkins| 8.2.10 @ 8:56AM

The bottom line is "Are we willing to invade Pakistan?" The smart leadership of the Taliban and Al Quada has set up residence in that country, and when the US leaves Afgahnistan it will flow back into the Afganhistan. Are we willing to gather enough troops to invade that country? I do not think so. Karizi (spl) had better be looking for an exit strategy. The writing is on the wall.

Blackwatch| 8.2.10 @ 2:08PM

France or Spain? They have nice beaches and beautiful women.

Teflon93| 8.2.10 @ 9:04AM

Nation-building is something imperial powers excel at. America has never been an imperial power and lacks the steely spine over the long haul to be one, empire-building requiring heaping amounts of naked self-interest and cruel injustice.

What we do excel at is lightning-fast wars to remove enemy regimes almost as painlessly to their people as ours.

So why don't we simply get in, win, and leave?

Bill Witten| 8.2.10 @ 3:41PM

We excel in removing regimes with no impact to the people. I agree with that. I do not agree that such a course is a correct one. When attacked we need to strike back in such a way that it doesn't sting--it needs to be a 6 month hospital stay for whoever attacks us--and that means that civilians and military need to GET THE POINT.

Nation building is folly. Want to ensure that the new nation isn't an enemy regime? The best way to do that is to not make a new nation. Why not just add a state and treat the natives the same way we treated the indians? Open the land for settlement under the Homestead Act and away we go. If you are on welfare you automatically get an M-4 and 160 Acres of land. Improve it in 2 years and you can stay and it is your, fail and lose your citizenship.

Teflon93| 8.3.10 @ 8:28AM

It is not the enslaved peoples of the Muslim world who need to get the point, but the Islamist regimes.

Removing them forcibly from power sends the appropriate message to the next regime. We do not have to stick around to take responsibility for forming it, contra Colin Powell.

ncatty| 8.2.10 @ 9:28AM

Am I reading Mr. Babbin correctly? He is against nation-building but in favor of attacking Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Syria? Yikes.

Red Phillips| 8.2.10 @ 1:58PM

This is the problem with this recent flight of some conservatives into "Jacksonianism" and away from the neocons. While it is helpful that they now recognize the neocons as something categorically different, the idea that nation building is a uniquely neocon project and it is keeping us from the important business of bombing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. is madness.

The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan CAN NOT be separated from their nation building component. The same revisionists who are now whining that we should have gone in, struck hard and gotten out are the same people who at one time were telling us we couldn’t leave because the terrorist will just come right back and leaving would be tantamount to “surrender.” (Remember we could have no “timelines” for withdrawal.) So am I to assume that Mr. Babbin would now endorse an immediate pull-out from both quagmires? I seriously doubt it.

While neocons may be more motivated by some abstract sense of America’s mission to police the world, and this new bread of anti-neocon Jacksonian may be more motivated by concrete concerns for American security, the result is the same, especially if both share the same fear mongering perspective about Islam. If we break it, we’ve bought it. Own the consequences of your policies. There is no easy way of war.

The problem is the underlying interventionism that motivates both perspectives. Until these so-called “conservatives” abandon their Chicken Little mindset, we will continue to have perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Reality| 8.2.10 @ 6:39PM

There is no inconsistency in Mr. Babbin's position. He isn't suggesting nation-building. He is insisting on nation-obliteration. The problem we can't seem to come to grips with is this: It isn't some specified "group" of radicals in a country that is causing the problem. It is the PEOPLE of a given nation who overtly or implicitly give support to the overall Islamic mantra of "No religion but ours will suffice."

Red Phillips| 8.2.10 @ 8:36PM

"He is insisting on nation-obliteration."

Please tell me you are kidding. This is a joke right?

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 9:49AM

Mr. Babbin,

I would remind you that it is not a perfect world.
I would also remind you that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan(taliban) had produced a significant threat to the United States during Mr. Dubyah's years in office after 9-11.

That is the point of the exercise is it not?

OK, Saddam was removed from the board in 2003.
No longer a threat. The Taliban was rocked back on its own heels even earlier, and sent to their caves for a "time out".

Notwithstanding, the constant drumbeat of the Liberal media, except for a few weeks, all in all, a very few soldiers and Marines fought a very "low-intensity" conflict thereafter.

One old soldier quipped to me that we had as many "training accident" deaths in Europe and the far east during the cold war in a given year, as we had "death casualties in combat." in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I certainly don't have the ability to prove that, but I think there is a lot of truth in it.

I am so sick of you people making the term "nation-building" a derisive negative.

Why can't you get your heads out of your butts?

How about I give you some positive verbs?
How about..."De-nazification"
How about "De-militarisation" in Japan.
How about "Toppling Saddam, then filling the power vacuum positively.

Call it "De-megalomaniacism"

How about "providing a people a taste of freedom and security."

You know, our soldiers and Marines have always stood strong for those missions around the world, and I honor each one of them.
"Centurions on the gates", if you will, and I shall not spit on their efforts and willingness.

Dubyah decided to at least try to divide the sheep from the goats; to "people-build" not "nation-build".
I don't mind a bit that he took us on offense against the barbarians, and in the process brought at least the possibility for liberty for many millions of people.

...Of course, Obama simply plays politics with those same people these days, but still, our troops have a real sense that they are defending the innocents in those lands.

So screw you and your epithets.

aware| 8.2.10 @ 11:09AM

Think back to 1988, the Soviets were "nation building" in Afghanistan(among other places), they had a huge army but were backed by a centrally planned basket case of an economic system(complete with government cooked numbers that LOOKED impressive), and they had lots of dependent "allies" receiving large amounts of financial and military aid.
Then 2 years later.....poof! Not everything is the same compared to us now but enough is to make the irony cosmic.

I also think the Reds were probably willing to be far more ruthless in implementing their form of "nation building" than we will ever be and still.......

I completely agree with you about our soldiers but think they deserve far better than this. Their blood is too precious to waste.

S. Ruger| 8.2.10 @ 11:17AM

Ken, you do make a rousing speech but if we're going to do anything more than provide "people a taste of freedom and security" then you and I better double-down on the Centrum Silver and sign up for The Occupation. To give these poor people any more than a taste of freedom, which they receive joyfully in the wake of our fabulous military personnel, we'll need an army of millions. Being in my 50s, I'm ready to go -- if we can switch a lot of that running out for fast walking.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 5:46PM

S. Ruger,
dammit, Scotch is painful being snorted out one's nose.
Nevertheless, thank you. (Grin-wince)

scotchieguy| 8.2.10 @ 12:34PM

I agree W kept us safe after 911. He clearly did something right. I also agree the number of U.S. casualties has been minimal. We probably lose more citizens in work-place accidents/year. But it is extremely expensive to nation-build. We have spent billions if not trillions the past nine years. What have we accomplished? Do we really give a damn about the Iraqi's having liberty? Is that what it's about? Afghanistan is simply a lost cause. There is nothing to save and never will be. They are still living in the stone age. I agree we have kept them on the run...but, seems there is an easier and cheaper way...I think if a nation wants liberty, they have to want it bad enough to fight for it on their own. Do you think we would have gotten our liberty if , say, the French said "we think you should have liberty?" Name another nation that got freedom by the will of another.

Mike| 8.2.10 @ 2:17PM

NATION BUILDING = Derisive term.

Take your crusading, do gooding, saving the word, rear and build nations with your own tax dollars.

Iraq was a total debacle and waste of money. It has no redeeming qualities.

Afghanistan, beyond the initial take down in the fall of 2001 - see above (Iraq).

R. Dittmar| 8.2.10 @ 10:00AM

I knew we were beaten in Afghanistan by our own political correctness on day one of the Bush invasion when the first order of business was to deploy bombers to drop food (?!?) and leaflets telling the Afghanis how much we loved and respected them and how we just had a tiny bit of a tiff with this Osama fellow.

The thing that Bush never understood about the nation building that the U.S. did in Germany and Japan is that the U.S. and allies completely destroyed those two countries to the point that their only choice was total annihilation or abject surrender. The fact that the U.S. was magnanimous in victory helped those nations rebuild as allies, but their surrender to the allied will was necessary to that rebuilding. Bush always thought he could move right on to the rebuilding without the unpleasantness of forcing a surrender and that simply doesn’t work with a nation that doesn’t know it’s been defeated.

scotchieguy| 8.2.10 @ 12:45PM

Excellent points, but there is a difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq. I don't think your average Iraqi considered the U.S. as an enemy that needed to be destroyed like the Japanese/Germans did. Therefore, there was really nothing to surrender. I also believe the Japanese and Germans had a similar western lifestyle before the war that Iraq never had. Hence it was easier to "rebuld" there.

Arnold Ahlert| 8.2.10 @ 10:22AM

A government which embraces the moral relativity that prevents it from even properly naming the enemy we are fighting cannot achieve victory.
A nation which puts its men and women in harm's way absent that desire for clear-cut victory ought to be ashamed of itself.

Thomas| 8.2.10 @ 11:22AM

Let us not confuse Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has strategic value to the United States and the West. It' societies [yes there are at least two and possibly three there] are more sectarian than many of their neighbors. Iraq is right next door to the major destabilizing force in the Middle East, Iran. It essentially drives a wedge between Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, all actives areas of Iranian activity. It's existence as a even a reluctant ally of the U.S. provides strategic, and more important, tactical basing of western forces in the current hot spot in the world. Iraq was a nation where the establishment of democratic rule, no matter how tenuous was warranted to further U.S and Western interests. That mistakes were made in its implementation is largely irrelevant. It had to be accomplished. And, the continued U.S. presence there should allow the momentum for a secular democratic government to develop to continue.

Afghanistan is another story entirely. Afghanistan is almost totally irrelevant to the interests of the United States from both a security and an economic stand point. Other than providing a second front against Iran, it is of no importance what so ever. In fact, the logistics of supplying forces in Afghanistan is is so tenuous as to be frightening.

Unlike Iraq, which has a history of central government, Afghanistan has no such tradition. It has always been a society based upon tribalism and the only central governments ever established have been those provided by invaders. And none of those were very successful. There simply is no popular desire or support for a centralized scheme of government. Also, unlike Iraq, the topography of Afghanistan makes an effective centralized government very difficult to maintain. Not only does the mountainous terrain make it difficult to administer the country, but it also allows for the easy passage of fighting forces from adjacent countries, such as Pakistan and Iran.

A centralized government friendly to the US and the West need only survive in Iraq until the inevitable clash with Iran. There is simply no need for any US presence in Afghanistan at this time, or in the foreseeable future. In the case of the former, US resources are still useful. In the latter, use of US forces is simply a drain on our resources. You have to know when to fold 'em.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 12:16PM

Thomas,
Splendid thoughts. Thank you.
Dubyah just kept enough troops in Afghanistan to keep the lid on the Taliban/AlQueda.

Obama has invested too much in the tar-baby.
My thought on Afghanistan? Napalm all the poppy fields.

Siegfried X| 8.2.10 @ 12:31PM

Afghanistan is NOT a security threat? What about 9/11?

Thomas| 8.2.10 @ 2:42PM

No, Afghanistan is not a security threat to the US, nor was it in 2001. The Taliban did not attack the US, Al Qaeda did. You may remember that the attack on Afghanistan following the attack on 9/11 was the SECOND attack on Al Qaeda in that country. President Clinton bombed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998; along with a factory in Sudan. The only reason that Bush invaded Afghanistan was because the Taliban government would not turn Osama Bin Ladin over to the U.S. Al Qaeda is an extra-territorial organization, having used training facilities in in Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. Today, Al Qaeda is still active in such diverse areas as Indonesia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and, reportedly in several nations in South America. It is simply impossible to defeat Al Qaeda and the other terrorist organizations by occupying Afghanistan. And, the people of Afghanistan, being not only at a near stone age level but being largely uninterested in conquest, represent no significant threat to the U.S. Once the taliban were routed and most of the Al Qaeda operatives were gone from Afghanistan, no further threat existed from the nation and no further American action was necessary.

But, the only way for the United States to guarantee that radical terrorists never invest Afghanistan again is to occupy it forever. Unless the US is prepared to do that, then it, and any other country in the world, can become a "security threat" in the future.

Ryan| 8.2.10 @ 1:42PM

Afghanistan has been nothing BUT a security threat since the Soviets pulled out. Most of the terrorist training camps were there, and the worst of the militant Islamists outside of Palestine and the Sudan were there as well.

Economically, it's currently a toss-up. There's stuff in them thar hill, as we've recently found out, something that may be able to establish a strong enough base for peaceful living outside of the drug trade there.

Mike| 8.2.10 @ 2:19PM

Iraq is not a reluctant ally of the US. It is an enthusiastic ally of Iran.

There was no sound rational reason for Iraq. It was pushed by many forces, none of which served the long term strategic interests of the USA.

Iraq was and continues to be, an ongoing tragedy for the USA.

jjv| 8.2.10 @ 11:42AM

Well Michael Ledeen is usually called a neocon and he has advocated exactly what you argue for here-ideological warfare against the Terror Masters. So again Neo-Con is just a boogey man word. Moreover, what do you do with a country once you have conquered it if the terror sponsors will come back if you leave? The only think I can think of is bolster the indiginous opposition. i.e. Nation build.

Pat| 8.2.10 @ 12:20PM

The unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, Italy, Germany and Japan was the ultimate strategic goal of our Armed Forces during WWII. Of course this primary goal would break down into other goals more limited in scope: the D-day invasion of Europe as opposed to an invasion of Germany through Italy, the island hopping strategy in the Pacific as opposed to invasion of Japan through China. Our Armed Forces needed clear and internally consistent strategic goals: FDR had many writers turning out emotionally based propaganda for home consumption (the man our children would later come to know as Dr. Seuss was one such writer), but there was not a word of “Spread freedom, stamp out Fascism” anywhere within Eisenhower’s and Marshall’s goals.

Churchill urged Eisenhower to rush his divisions forward and capture Berlin before the Soviet Union could, Eisenhower declined, it served no strategic purpose, it supported no legitimate military goal. Later, Eisenhower would be criticized for allowing communist rule to replace rule by the fascists in half of Germany and all of eastern Europe. But, the Soviet Union had over 200 battle hardened military divisions as compared to the Allies’ 90 divisions. Their tactical aircraft were the equal of our own, their tanks much better than ours and their combat soldiers had done more to defeat the finest army in the world than we had. Common sense won out over ideological fervor, pragmatism looked “freedom for everyone” in the eye and freedom blinked. Maybe we should ask ourselves whether we have clear and realistic goals within this War on Terror.

Tim*| 8.2.10 @ 1:45PM

" American aid to the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 18 million tons of materiel at an overall cost of $10 billion ($120 billion modern) . "

Pat| 8.2.10 @ 2:17PM

The Soviet Union’s aid to America and our allies between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 10 million casualties within their armed forces, America’s total armed forces reached a peak of 9 million during the war years, the Russians lost more soldiers fighting the Germans than we had in our entire armed forces, including those within the Pacific theatre. “Unconditional surrender”, an indisputably boneheaded pronouncement by FDR, was intended to prevent the Soviets from signing a separate armistice or peace treaty with Hitler, leaving America and England to fight on alone.

While it’s true the words “spam” and “Studebaker” (trucks) became common terms among the Soviet Union’s armed forces, Roosevelt’s insistence on unconditional surrender increased American casualties without a commensurate return in strategic advantage – politicians controlling the military makes for good politics but seldom makes for good military decisions – something this author is attempting to point out.

Tim*| 8.2.10 @ 5:02PM

" Aviation was also important part of land lease and the Soviet Union received 21,000 planes for this program. P-39, or air cobra, and later its improved version called king cobra were passed to the Red Army."
"There were 20 million homeless, and 25 million dead, four tenth of agriculture was lost and half of the industrial production was destroyed. “If there were no lend lease the losses could have been much heavier, the war would have lasted longer and the victory not so complete”

Pat| 8.2.10 @ 7:38PM

We also sent Sherman tanks to the Soviets, but they liked the spam a great deal more. The Shermans had a narrow track width, not suitable for the Russian steppes and the Reds built one of the primo tanks of the war, considered far better than the American Shermans (which were considered superior to the Brits’ tanks) and equal to the German tanks when you consider ability to maneuver, range, fuel mileage, gunnery. Being a horse drawn army like the Germans, the Russians appreciated the Studebaker trucks as much as they enjoyed our spam. Some of our Lend-Lease was garage sale stuff like the no turbo-charger P-39s and under-gunned Shermans, the P-39s were put to good use by the Russians however, a better use than the Americans and Brits accomplished with them – but you should also look into the IL-2 Sturmoviks, Yaks and Migs the Russians built in their drafty factories – probably among the best tactical aircraft serving during WWII.

Lend-Lease certainly didn’t win the war on the Eastern Front, but it undeniably helped, although you could make an equally valid claim that the Brits relied on Lend-Lease (check out where they got petroleum products) to win their portion of the war, as is also true for the French. As one historian quipped: “the Americans bought victory with Russian blood paid for in spam”. But, Soviet politicians were just as incompetent as ours – Stalin purged his officers’ corps in the 1930s just in time for WWII, one Russian general went directly from the Siberian re-education camps to the fighting front while the Germans were slaughtering the Red Army.

Clinton nee Publius| 8.2.10 @ 7:06PM

I'm sorry, Pat. You don't have the facts here. You don't have the right casualty counts, you have chosen to disregard the actual troop counts of people serving in our Armed Forces and the nature, timing and amount of aid the Soviets received.

Pat| 8.2.10 @ 8:20PM

I’m sure you believe that out of patriotic motives but the numbers are correct, if understated for total Soviet losses. In the fall of 1942, the battle of Stalingrad commenced, considered the turning point of the war by historians – no Americans were involved in this titanic battle. In late fall of 1942 (November), America began the invasion of North Africa coming up against the Germans for the first time, the same German army the Soviets had been fighting since June, 1941. By the summer of 1943, the Americans had moved on to Sicily, a single German division fought a rear-guard action holding off the British and American invasion force. That same summer, the Russians fought the Germans in the battle of Kursk, considered the largest land battle ever fought, over 2 million soldiers were involved in this single battle.

As with the Americans in North Africa, the Germans initially dominated the Red Army during 1941 and 1942, but gradually the Soviets improved their combat skills and armaments while suffering unbelievable casualty rates. If you check out the German deployment of fighting divisions stationed on the Eastern Front versus the German deployment of forces in North Africa, Italy and along the Atlantic wall from 1942 through 1944, you’ll see the vast disparity between the numbers of men under arms and in active combat and also where the fighting focus lay. Had the Soviets made a separate peace or even a cease fire armistice with the Germans, America and the Commonwealth nations would have faced the Germans and their allied forces alone, and we probably would have sued for peace rather than attempt an invasion against the European mainland.

JP| 8.2.10 @ 12:25PM

There were and still are 2 centers of thought on display here. First are the "Stability uber alles) schoolf of thought; the second is preemption and the spread of Democacy.

President Bush during the aftermath of 9/11 rightfully pointed out that the Stability School was partly or mostly to blame for 9/11. The Powell-Albright-Baker-Scowcroft wing argued that we had to be realistic in how we approach Islam. They demanded that we must keep open cultural, diplomatic, and economic ties with Islam and ignore thier eschotalogy, thier radicalism, and thier violent prostelyzing. The Stabilizers were responsible for the Visa Express, the recruitment of Wanabist clerics into our prisons, trade of high tech munitions to Egypt, and a whole host of initiatives to pressure Isreal into giving up "land or peace". They also were responsible for the process that allowed jihadists into our nation with no supervision. The Stabilizers believed that we could buy peace through bribery; the worse thing we could do was to antangonize nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and Syria. They igonred radical extremism that percolated through the madrasses and mosques worldwide, and they used terms like "honest broker" when dealing with the Palestinian/Isreali issue.

Bush, for about 9 months, dispensed with the school of thought (at least partly). He correctly deduced that both Iraq and Iran posed a clean and present danger to the US. Al Qaida and the Taliban received both money and logistics from Iran. Saddam may have been down, but he wasn't out. The Oil for Food program when it was uncovered illustrated how easily European nations were corrupted. Saddam recieved almost $30 billion from France, Switzerland, Russia, and Germany. He used this money to rebuild his military infrastructure. Along with Iran he threatened the longterm stability of the Persian Gulf. After Afghanistan, Bush rightly called out NATO to either put up or shut up. He also gave notice to Iran and North Korea.

But, alas he showed he didn't possess the will to see his security vision through. The DOD and State Departments were not up to the challenge. And the Dems were just waiting for the President to make one mis-step. The run-up to the 2003 invasion was done under the shadow of the 2002 mid-term and the Oil for Food scandal. And the Dems had in place a well funded, highly sophisticated, and well informed organization of opposition front groups. They had fellow-travelers well placed in the CIA, DOD, and State Department, as well as acedemia, the media, and the Belway bureaucracy. All the while, NATO and EU nations had nearly 350,000 well armed trained combat troops that never left the comforts of Europe. The truth be known, even if we deployed the entire DOD into Iraq our military numbers would have still fallen short. The hollowing out of our military began in 1992, not 2003.

As far as Bush's budgest were concerned, there are indications that he figured that with the war going on he would just allow Congress to take care of his domestic budget. And I might add that many in the GOP majority were so-called Reagan Republicans. That is, they were supposedly small government conservatives (Delay, Lugar, Hegel, Lindsay Graham, as well as Armey, Hastert, Sanatorum, and McConnel). The only national politican who consistently complained about the huge rise in domestic spending was none other than John McCain. I think it would be hard pressed to hang the Neo-Con lable on GOP pols like the ones mentioned above. Nope, as it turned out, pork spending is and was as ingrained in the GOP's DNA is it is for the Dems.

Finally, nation-building has no opposite. That is, unless one endorses the old Curtis LeMay's ideas of capret bombing. And I don't think Americans are ready to see children or other innocent civilians maimed -not even Islamic radicals. There is no easy answers to these problems. And it is childish as well as niave to hang them on the shoulders to a group of people (Neo-Cons) who may not even exist.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 6:00PM

JP,
what a splendidly thoughtful post! Thank you.
Hey, just call us "Pax-Americanus". (smile)

Siegfried X| 8.2.10 @ 12:37PM

"Islam -- radical or otherwise -- is as much an ideology as a religion: ... the ideology has to be attacked and defeated just as communism and Nazism were."

That is EXACTLY what bin Laden hoped for with 9/11, to start a holy war between Christianity and Islam.

An ideological war against Islam would be insanity. And even if we believed it was necessary, attacking everyone at once would be the wrong way to fight. Communism, which Babbin mentions, was beaten mostly with a cold war, not a hot war against all communists at once. And in World War II we temporarily allied with Stalin in order to beat Hitler, conquering our enemies one at a time.

Derek Leaberry| 8.2.10 @ 12:48PM

Neo-conservatives act to conserve nothing but their preeminence in the Republican Party and the conservative movement. They are a cancer and should be abandoned if conservatives are to renew themselves.

Tim*| 8.2.10 @ 2:16PM

" Conservapedia Definition of Neocon:

A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics can appear to be conservative while in fact favoring big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then dominated the George W. Bush Administration after 2001. Neoconservatives are often preferred by liberals to portray the conservative voice in the media, as in television talk shows, newspaper columnists, magazines, think tanks, and advisory positions in Republican Administrations.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues, [and] are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with paleoconservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia."

JP| 8.2.10 @ 3:21PM

I think the so-called NeoCons exerted quite a bit of influence in Reagan's WH. William Bennett, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Jean Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abrams, Alan Greenspan (at least temporairly was considered a neocon), were just a few. Ben Wattenberg, as well as George Will had easy access to the Oval Office. Robert Bork should also be included as a NeoCon. And while he wasn't a policyamker per se, his influence on conservative legal thinking still exerts influence. George Will probably had more access to Reagan than any other pundit or thinker. And while some do not think his ideas today are of the NeoCon variety, his ideas concerning Big Government Conservatism (see his Statecraft as Soulcraft) today would be called neo-conservative. I won't argue that these men excerted undo influence on Ronald Reagan, but thier ideas found a receptive audience in the West Wing.

Also, I wouldn't go as far as to say thier ideas dominated Bush43. Bush43, after-all, had quite a few Democrats he leaned on (Karen Hughes, Andy Card, Colin Powel, George Tenet, Paul O'Neil and Hank Paulson). Neocons such as Wolfowitz and Feith never rose to such levels that they made the final decisions over War and Peace. And the President himself was already pre-disposed to "Compassionate Conservatism" -something he probably inherited from his father and his wife (the former never got along with Reagan, the later is a well known social liberal).

Neocons were an easy target for the Hard Left due primairily to the Left's obvious anti-semitism (see the now infamous article by Shaida Drury which blames the Iraq War on the late Leo-Strauss and Alan Bloom). For the paleo-cons, remember that Pat Buchanan served both Nixon and Reagan, and he reserves a special antipathy towards Jews in general and Neo-cons in particular. I think there was also a degree of envy from the Old Guard Libertairians and West Coast conservatives. These men toiled for 30 lonely years in the wilderness only to see these "Johnny Come Lately's" recieve the choice policy appointments, lucrative endowed chairs, and media attention. The Neocons in some cases were quite famous Left-wing antagonists (see Collier and Horowitz),not to mention snobbish New York intellectuals (Nixon in particular hated them); the Old Guard saw thier change of heart as nothing more than career oppurtunisim.

But, over-all I think many people overstate the influence the Neco-Cons had in the party.

Siegfried X| 8.2.10 @ 5:04PM

The first generation neo-cons were card carrying Democrats who became Republicans solely because they favored the use of military force to fight Soviet Communism. They retained liberal Democratic views on most non-military issues.

Today's neo-cons, children and grandchildren of the original generation favor military force against Islam / terrorism, but are often left-wing in other areas.

Sometimes accusations of anti-Semitism are made against anyone who criticizes the neo-cons. This is incorrect since some neos are Christian, including nominal Christians who in reality may be deist or even agnostic.

Siegfried X| 8.2.10 @ 5:10PM

John McCain during his presidential campaign was a "Christian" neo-con. He wanted to "bomb bomb Iran" but agreed with Obama on cap & trade, amnesty, etc.

martin j smith| 8.2.10 @ 3:50PM

GWB feared a direct assault on the core of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. In think this is directly connected to his relationship with various Muslim countries. The problem is one has to choose--fight to win or get caught up in politics both domestic and foreign. GWB did not handle criticim by the Democrat Left all and he did not confront his so ,called allies both in Europe and in the Middle east. Neither he nor BHO are the right President for our nation's security. I think you win the war then you talk about the direction ofr country such as Iraq and Afganistan. If the keygoal of ridding these two nations of terrorism were met and there was a mechanism ( not thru the UN ) by which both countries could work with us to maintain order that would be fine. But then you nternal politicla and ethnic rivalries plus external from our enemies such as Iran, China and Russ and you a mess. Where does it leave us. The main would to simply in a major way disrupt terrorist activity and it would require constant vigilance and repeated attacks on any terrorist return--sort of like what Israel has to do . It would be a long term almost never ending war-and it will be a threat if we like it or not. A variation of the Cold War but even worse. We are forced to live with and deal with terrorism where appeasement is at our perile.

martin j smith| 8.2.10 @ 4:08PM

Success could be measured where the most important objective would a military foothold in the region with the blessing of national Leaders of say Iraq and Afganistan and sufficient support by the population. Of course aid and various goodies thrown would not hurt--it would cost some. But national building in think is unrealistic unless there are many variables such curruption,tribal rivalries and ethnic rivalries under control--to that I say good luck. But, to completely abandon the region and these nations because the nation building is problem is an big error because the spread of Islamic extremeism is go on the march--and nuclear and other WMDs with go along with it. So we have choice to be in the fight. We have to have resolute stong and effective leaders. Neither GWB nor BHO meet the test even less so BHO

Occam's Tool| 8.2.10 @ 4:56PM

Victory will ultimately require carpetbombing as per Curtis LeMay, the greatest American General of the 20th Century. Once our enemies are pulped, they can be rebuilt, as we did Germany and Japan. But we haven't pulped them yet because of a misplaced "humanity." Sharia delenda est.

en (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 6:07PM

Tool,
Carpet bomb my ass...we could just nuke -em, and be done with it.
OH...that is not who we are. I guess we will just have to muddle through.

GOD BLESS YOU SOLDIERS AND MARINES!

Reality| 8.2.10 @ 6:51PM

That had better become who we are. The other side isn't sitting around asking 'how can we play fair?'. We have to get over being pc and become TNT to anyone who wishes us ill.

Clinton nee Publius| 8.2.10 @ 7:13PM

What these wars have shown is that the entire idea of being able to fight limited warfare and maintain political cover for it is impossible.

The object of war is to utterly destroy the enemy. Trying to wage a politically-correct war - as was the case in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan means you will lose. War is the utter destruction - the ultimate gamble; losers die and their lands are pillaged and women raped. Progressives think war is a political game to be used by the ruling class to strip more wealth from the private-sector when the reality is quite different. War means you utterly destroy the enemy, level his lands, kill all his people and continue doing so until those who survive come to their senses and sue for peace.

You see, they know this and are willing to fight to the end and if you do not meet this commitment with the same level of ruthlessness, the same level of resource commitment and the same single-minded purpose of winning - no matter what - then you are no better than any other progressive and have no business directing foreign policy in a world where there are very dangerous people who believe that killing is the preferred method of settling political disputes.

All of this serves the political agenda of progressives as they are seeking to rule when it ends for their own goals and those that die don't matter as long as the government channels their share of the spoils to them. In the end, they think the other tyrants will readily allow them to continue feeding their fellow villagers to the beast but it will not be so. In the end, the only way to end wars forever is to put an end to these political movements that believe they are entitled to rule us for their own profit and at our exclusive risk and expense.

Arnold | 8.3.10 @ 3:04AM

The only way to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan is to turn them into American colonies. Reinstate the Homestead Act and encourage Americans and Mexicans to settle there. After 50 years when the natives have been reduced to a small minority or run off into reservations, these two colonies can be granted statehood or just kept in Puerto Rico like status. They can also be used as a dumping ground for our prisoners and other criminal elements who are not easily convicted.

FeralCat| 8.3.10 @ 3:16AM

Circa 2012:

Just about for years ago I set out on Obama's Afghanistan road,
Seekin' my fame and glory, lookin' to turn the mullah’s hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.

Flew in yet again on a big plane, I hope I'll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was yet again just passin' through, must now be yet another 3 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience ["Not to complain but whatever the hell happened to my youth?!"], looks like they took still more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.

The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, yet another one year stand, looks like the plans fell through yet again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.

Mmmm...
If I only had a woman ["Hey Jack, do you remember what a woman is?"], for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while cheered on by CINO's Obama sat back home oblivious to Islam and power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
- CCR Soldier Boy

Eugene Debszynski| 8.9.10 @ 7:05PM

Jed Babbin is literally a milk-carton poster child FOR NEOCONSERVATISM.. or NEOWilsonian-ism to put it more accurately-

What I am seeing is a cloak-shedding or laughable proportions, or a identity-change as it were..

the Neocons lost and literally were swept out by utterly laughable NeoLiberals under Obama.. The identity and dogma of the Neocon is quite inseperable FROM the Obama NeoLibs..
thus, the new butterfly is seeking to tears itself free of the cocoon, or former ”host identity” and re-emerge as something different now that its former identity is useless and lost in a landslide to a man who cannot even provide a long-form BC or college transcript.

This is more a case of a splinter-cadre or the Neocon entity trying to reemerge as its own opposition and hope no one else is aware…