-
Another Obama Friend
March 10, 2012 | 1 comment
-
Who’s Really Conservative?
February 4, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Obama Can’t Get Past the Past
December 10, 2011 | 1 comment
-
My One-Night Stand With a Real Pig
November 5, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Balancing Acts
October 1, 2011 | 2 comments
Note From the Publisher
Obama’s War
Afghanistan has little strategic value and the war is one of choice rather than necessity.
Afghanistan is often called the “graveyard of empires.” It is also Barack Obama’s Achilles’ heel. He has nobody to blame but himself.
Afghanistan has little strategic value and the war is one of choice rather than necessity. Now, at the end of a wasteful and frustrating decade, our objective is to end the fighting and leave a measure of stability behind. But clarifying even this simple goal seems more than the Obama administration can handle.
Like the rest of Obama’s foreign policy, U.S. strategy in that beleaguered country is misguided, confused, and aimless. To the president, the war in Afghanistan is a domestic political issue. It is intended to bolster his electoral future, to help pass his domestic legislative agenda, and to placate critics of his policies in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. To the extent that he knows his history, I suspect he imagines a replay of Cold War days, when the hawks of both parties had a quiet deal with the liberals: they would support social policies in return for the liberals’ votes for defense spending. We kept the Russians at bay, the welfare state continued to expand, and both sides were happy.
The costs of this war to the United States are huge. We now have nearly 100,000 U.S. troops there, and at least as many contract civilians and employees of 60 federal agencies, all at a cost of nearly $90 billion a year, or $250 million a day. In the 21 months since Obama took office, our military has taken on every task assigned, and fought bravely and effectively. Yet more than 600 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan-more than died there during George Bush’s entire time in office.
To the military, the cost is not only in lives and injuries-we suffered 200 deaths over the past three months-and materiel. Afghanistan is a distraction at time when our troops — already over-extended — need to be ready for emergencies that could easily arise in Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Yet Obama and the Congress simply make up for their incoherence and strategic shortcomings by throwing more money and people into the stew.
And what is our goal? Obama has not made that clear. Instead, we seem to have stumbled into “nation-building” (a technology neither we nor anyone else understand) to shore up President Karzai as a substitute for the Taliban. It’s a pipe dream that won’t work now — or ever — regardless of the number of troops and dollars we expend. Afghanistan is dominated by tribes, is hopelessly corrupt and virtually ungovernable, is culturally rooted in the Middle Ages, and is allergic to foreigners. Probably no country in the world is a worse candidate for nation-building — something the U.S. is ill equipped to do in the best of circumstances.
The Afghan war is often compared to Vietnam, although at least in Vietnam we were fighting Communists. As a retired Marine general, who had been in Vietnam for most of that war and much involved in national security affairs ever since, recently told me, “The quagmire in Afghanistan is already deeper than ‘Nam ever was, and will only get worse.” He went on to say that he knows virtually nobody, inside or outside of the defense establishment, who thinks we are on the right course there.
It is time for conservatives, Tea Partiers, and right-thinking Americans, from whatever persuasion, to recognize that Obama’s Afghan war is a fool’s errand with virtually no chance of success, whatever success may mean. America has acquitted herself well, using her best and brightest to give millions of Afghans a chance for freedom and progress. After nine years of war, hundreds of billions of dollars and countless American and Afghan lives wasted, it is inconceivable that anything good, for either the United States or the Afghans, will come of it. Let us recognize that, and end this war as soon as possible.
About the Author
Alfred S. Regnery is a former publisher of The American Spectator. He is the former president and publisher of Regnery Publishing, Inc., which produced twenty-two New York Times bestsellers during his tenure. Regnery also served in the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, worked on the U.S. Senate staff, and has been in private law practice. He currently serves on several corporate and non-profit boards, and is the Chairman of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute .
His first book, Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism, was published in 2008. The book has been praised as one of the best authoritative accounts on the history of the American conservative movement.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Alfred S. Regnery
More Articles From Note From the Publisher
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/18/obamas-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 10.18.10 @ 6:22AM
Have you forgotten that Al Qaeda and the Taliban bombed New York from their bases in Afghanistan? Should we just leave Afghanistan and allow them to do the same thing again?
potkas7| 10.18.10 @ 7:43AM
Nobody has forgotten what Al Qaeda did, but you have conflated a whole lot into your question.
Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. The Taliban, as nominal the government of Afghanistan, gave Al Qaeda operatives safe haven. But, the Taliban's writ did not cover the entire country, certainly not the north of the country where the Northern Alliance continued flighting the Kabul government nor the west on the Iranian border.
I got there in December of 2001 and left in June 2002. When I left Al Qaeda had been dispersed and the Taliban government overthrown. A country-wide tribal council - a loya jirga - was on the eve of selecting Hamid Karzai as the new President. So it is not an illegitimate question to ask 'Why, after 9 years, are we still there?' I would argue that in hanging on we are following our best impulses, a genuine desire to help, but I would further argue that our continued presence is demonstrably not making things better.
canuckistani| 10.18.10 @ 10:07AM
Afghanistan is the epitome of the incompatibility of US "values" in an Islamic context. It is a tribal, illiterate, savage country that is pitch perfect for an Islamic dictatorship, and it has taken a 100 years to get here, and possibly a 1000 more to evolve it. Don't bother.
Our minimal goals should be the exploitation of resources, and the encouraging of improved relations between India and Pakistan. Karzai's work on reviving the TAPI deal is revealing, and the US's focus on that project is important.
This is a US strategic goal and deserves security protection as it is an important piece in the Iran containment strategy - with some anti-China benefits.
If the Taliban negotiations preserve the US interests in this deal and other mineral rights, then we should draw down troops precipitously and refocus on strategic asset protection and targeted Al-Qaeda operations in the Pakistani tribal zones.
Enough.
Bus| 10.21.10 @ 5:11PM
This is why the founders in their wisdom put Art. 1 sec.8 clause 11 into the constitution. Congress (the people's representatives) should be the ones declaring war. War powers are too great to put all in the hands of one branch, yet that's we have allowed to happen. At least with a discussion and debate before going to war the American people and congress would be able to define the purpose, the goals, and the hoped for conclusion.
The way it has gotten is to let the president use his military to jump into a conflict of his choosing and then try to justify the reasons. Of course if members of congress object then they aren't being supportive of the troops.
Lets demand a return to the constitutional principles and if a President tries to sidestep it by using the U.N. or some other gimmick, then let impeachment proceedings begin.
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:21PM
You are right. I forgot to add that little detail to my message.
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:18PM
He did not conflate anything. He got it exactly right, Afghanistan was the source for the Wahabi attack on 9-11. Yes, Wahabi, not Islamic. Al Qaeda is still there.
It is not an illegitimate question to ask why we are there after 9 years. However, the person you needed to ask was George W. Bush, not Barrack Obama. You were pulled out in June 2002? Why wasn't the job finished then?
WE have been asking why the US is still there for years. Only YOUR side defended Bush in keeping us there. The right has made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a test of patriotism, now the right want's to lay it on Obama?
Afghanistan should have ended years ago, Iraq should never have happened. Had Iraq never happened Afghanistan probably would have ended years ago.
If I go back through the archives of The American Spectator I'll bet I find a stream of support for Bush's wars, and attacks on democrats for opposing them.
Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq, and he gave a speech in which he outlined just how it would go. The military told Rumsfeld how to do it right, and he insisted on doing it wrong.
It's not Obama's war, it's Bush's war, both of them, and the followers of American Spectator supported him in it all along. Those 600 deaths do not compare to the 4000+ totally unnecessary deaths in Iraq, and all 4000+ represent blood on Bush's hands, and his enabeler's.
I am one of those who opposed the invasion before it happened, the lies were becoming evident even then. If you supported the invasion of Iraq the guilt is on you.
Senor Mick| 10.18.10 @ 1:04PM
In a word, yes. We should just leave. How will continuing to flush men and material down the desolate craphole of Afghanistan be to our benefit? You can only nation-build if the nation you are building has a foundation similar to yours. The only exapmples of by-the-book nation building sucesses occured in places that were amenable to it (Germany, Japan, South Korea, even middle-classed Iraq).
What exactly is Afghanistan amenable to? I don't belive that inside every Afghan tribesman an American is fighting to get out, nor do I believe in endless wastes of blood and treasure in order to make the world (especially a medieval-minded, semi-lierate one) safe for "democracy."
darswan| 10.18.10 @ 6:50PM
We should be exiting Afghanistan as soon as possible. It would be better to take the money we are spending in war and simply write checks to the Afghan people rather than continue the killing of Taliban and Nato (American) forces. Tribal warfare has always been won in this part of the world by "switching sides". Let's be the highest bidder in money not lives lost.
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:23PM
That is how Iraq turned around. The Anbar Awakening was the Iraqis who opposed us switching to fighting with us.
Paychecks are much better than body bags.
Ret. Marine| 10.18.10 @ 7:22AM
Yes Siegfried X, I too came to the same conclusion. Least we forget who started this war. We must never let our eyes off the goals. It is one thing to prosecute a war with intended effects, but to abandon them to the least of excuses is at best a fools errand.
This article hits on one item that really nails it for this old Devil Dog, that of the Nation building process. I agree, it is not worth our time, not worth any one's time for that matter. We had the right idea right up to the time when someone suggested that if we break it, we own it. Bull, that should have been outright blasted right out of the playing field the minute it was suggested. The problem with this thinking is it simply wrong, We went in there to kill the enemy, kill its ability to reorganize and least kill those who were directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We accomplished this with in the first few weeks. Thats where it should have stopped. The next phase would have been to keep a close watch of the goings on and then hit them as many times as it took to get it into their thick tribal heads that we will come in even harder the next time, give them pause as to the efforts of screwing with us. obamas Bin Ly'n is doing nothing in the effort to release our true potential upon this enemy known as islam, in fact it is quite clear to those in the circle, he's doing squat and his only intentions are to curry favor with the adherents of his ideology, or his base which ever way one describes it. obamas Bin Ly'n's war, not hardly, its just one component of the larger war effort for which he has failed miserably.
Siegfried X| 10.18.10 @ 8:12AM
Nation building is an important part of protecting our country. I hope we haven't lost the will to fight by giving up this long-standing military practice.
In World War II we didn't just destroy Germany and Japan, then walk away. We didn't allow the Nazis and Japanese Imperial empire to rebuild themselves from the ashes, which is what would have happened if we had just walked away. In fact we still have military bases in both of those countries, 65 years after the war ended. We also still have a strong military presence in North Korea.
ncatty| 10.18.10 @ 9:16AM
I hope we are not in Afghanistan for 65 years.
Texas Mom 2012| 10.18.10 @ 11:21AM
Not to be picky but we have troops stationed in SOUTH Korea, not North Korea. I believe we have approximately 50000 troops stationed at the DMZ between the two countries. As bad as our allies can be at times, we are not in bed with Kim Jung Il the dictator and we are defending the thriving democracy of South Korea.
Perhaps the solution to Afghanistan is too simply let the tribes decide who will represent them and then the reps can elect a Leader. Then let's retreat to a base and let the Afghans fight it out and have our troops only go after alQuada on the border.
Siegfried X| 10.18.10 @ 12:57PM
Yes, it was a typo. I wish this blog had an edit feature.
SpiralArchitect| 10.18.10 @ 2:03PM
From the grandeous background of the author I would have suspected he would know when a decade starts and one ends.
"Now, at the end of a wasteful and frustrating decade..."
2010 is the first year of the second decade of the century; thanks for playing.
Texas Mom 2012| 10.18.10 @ 11:21AM
Not to be picky but we have troops stationed in SOUTH Korea, not North Korea. I believe we have approximately 50000 troops stationed at the DMZ between the two countries. As bad as our allies can be at times, we are not in bed with Kim Jung Il the dictator and we are defending the thriving democracy of South Korea.
Perhaps the solution to Afghanistan is too simply let the tribes decide who will represent them and then the reps can elect a Leader. Then let's retreat to a base and let the Afghans fight it out and have our troops only go after alQuada on the border.
The Big E| 10.18.10 @ 2:38PM
The comparison between Germany and Japan on the one hand, and Afghanistan on the other, is completely off base. What we did in Germany and Japan was not nation building, it was nation re-building - which is a very different thing.
Both Germany and Japan had strong, central governments before WWII which - rightly or wrongly - were viewed as the legitimate government by the citizens. Afghanistan did not have a strong central government before - well ever - and I'm unaware of the Afghans ever recognizing the legitimacy of any authority over the whole of Afghanistan unless it was the authority of Islam.
Before WWII, and in the immediate aftermath, Germans across Germany thought of themselves first as Germans, Japanese across Japan thought of themselves first as Japanese. Both countries already had a distinct ethnic and national identity. Afghanistan has no such ethnic or national identity. I would be willing to bet that most Afghans do not think of themselves first as Afghans. They simply don't have the strong pre-existing national identity that the Germans and Japanese had.
Finally, while we did keep troops in both Germany and Japan for 65 years after the end of WWII, that was not because of the need to defend those countries from insurgents within their own borders (though that did go on for a few years after the war - it did not go on for 65 years, or anything close to it). We kept troops in those countries to defend against invasion from an external threat, namely, the Soviet Union. Our troops in Afghanistan are not defending the Afghan borders against invasion by a foreign power bearing an ideology inconsistent with the Afghan's traditional values.
The situations are in no way comparable.
Gran Torino| 10.18.10 @ 3:18PM
U.S. Military: "Give us your hearts and minds and we'll burn your damn huts down!"
Taliban: "Don't you mean, OR you'll burn our damn huts down?"
U.S. Military: "O.K. OR we'll burn your damn huts down."
(An attempt at humor. God knows we need it.)
On a more serious not, the Taliban are winning - because they're not losing. Our commander-in-chief has already set a date for our withdrawal, so they know they just need to be patience. They know that they've already beat us. It's just a matter of time. Oh, for the good old days when we were fighting a madman with a little moustache and a bad haircut, when his troops were easily distinguishable by their uniforms and weird helmets and swastikas and the fact that they would yell from time to time, "Heil Hitler!" We need to cut our losses, secure our own borders and wait for the war with Hugo Chavez (yes, I've read that the Russians want to help him with his nuclear program now) or President "Ringo Starr" of Iran, or those little gooks from North Korea who wear hats and glasses that are too big for their little heads.
john| 10.18.10 @ 1:51PM
Well said Sir. Thank you for your service.
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:34PM
Well, you got it about 25% right.
You break it you own it was said by Colin Powell, about Iraq, not Afghanistan. He was right there. Thanks to Rumsfeld's war on the cheap Iraq went from a nasty little dictatorship threatening no one to an open market for Al Qaeda.
Killing Al Qaeda and their immediate sponsors was the original intent, and we did NOT achieve that goal. The leadership got away, thanks to Bush's turning to Iraq. They are still there, and have been growing in power and influence.
Where you really get it wrong is in trying to launch a holy war against Islam. Nothing would do more to destroy this country than that. There are over 1 billion Muslims in this world, and 85% of them are not Arabs. The only Islamic group who threaten the US are the Wahabi. Until you can say that word you contribute nothing to the debate, or America's safety. And why do you not say Wahabi? Because your leaders, the right wing talking heads and The American Spectator will not call out the Saudis, and Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahabism, and of Al Qaeda.
Glenn Beck, Franklin Graham and their ilk are more of a threat to this country's survival than all the Muslims in the world.
The final stupidity in your argument is in claiming Obama's support for the war in Afghanistan is for the benefit of his base. Obama's base is the least supportive of war in this country. Obama's base wants us out of Iraq, and finished with Afghanistan. Obama's base recognizes that Iraq should never have happened, and Afghanistan should have been over years ago.
And you hate spewing doesn't change that.
Bernard Lindstrom| 10.18.10 @ 7:39AM
It was right and proper and justified, attacking those who struck on 9/11. That is no longer what we are doing there. Now we are nation building - by definition a liberal project. Afghanistan has transformed from a defensive or retaliatory war into another Big Gov't boondoggle which every true conservative should oppose. It is one thing for someone like Obama to value our soldiers so little as to send them to their deaths on the other side of the globe in a utopian scheme to civilize the Middle East. Conservatives should know better.
Big Tony| 10.18.10 @ 7:43AM
Good intel, drone aircraft, cruise missles, special forces and covert assasinations should be able to keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban off balance and more worried about their own hides, with little time to plan and train for attaching others. While the financial and human cost from that could remain fairly low.
But since young people are no longer being forced by the threat of imprisonment to serve in the military I don't see where the Afghan conflict will have the same kind of domestic back lash that Vietnam caused.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I agree there is no possiblilty for successful nation building in Afghanistan.
Intelligent Design| 10.18.10 @ 7:57AM
And while our soldiers are dying needlessly in Afghanistan, Muslim terrorists are walking across the border from Mexico. Among the millions of illegals who have infiltrated the U.S., it is a certainty that at least hundreds are terrorists plotting attacks against American civilians. At the same time, Obama is waging war against the Governor of AZ, the AZ legislature, and AZ citizens, because they want to eject illegals. Obama thinks the illegals are entitled to the rights of U.S. citizens, and that we should pay the price. Obama is a treacherous impostor jeopardizing our lives, national security, and freedom.
Intelligent Design| 10.18.10 @ 11:59AM
Instead of 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, we should have ten or twenty thousand troops along our border with Mexico.
Gran Torino| 10.18.10 @ 3:22PM
Intelligent Design,
That was one of the better ideas posted here. We'll give you a job in the next administration.
davelnaf| 10.18.10 @ 8:15AM
Americans, military and civilian, who were in Afghanistan for any period of time could easily tell you why attempts to create stability in that country would eventually fail. The people of Afghanistan, as the author notes, are very backward. Whatever sense of political allegiance they have puts their village first, Afghanistan a distant second, and foreign entities dead last. Even if the average Afghan fully comprehended why the US is in their country it is problematic whether even this would make any difference to their extremely limited worldview. For the elites, like Hamid Karzai, rampant corruption is something they do because they understand that Afghanistan is not so much a real country than it is a piece of geography, and they have no village to return to at the end of the day.
If we’re going to stay in Afghanistan we should fortify Bagram and Kandahar and basically withdraw from every other part of that country. And if it has not already been done by Fluor and DynCorp the US government should demand that people from the Balkans be sent home; nearly all are Muslim and it is a well-known fact among Ex-Pats that some of them pass intel on the Taliban, just as they did to the Insurgency in Iraq.
Texas Mom 2012| 10.18.10 @ 11:29AM
I do not work for Fluor but I have a connection and this is the first time that I have heard about employees from the Balkans...
Other than that, I would vote for your policy! Fort Bagram and Fort Kandahar would give us the flexibility to continue to fight alQuaeda while minimizing the threat to our troops. I think it is necessary to re-evaluate our Afghan policy because it seems to be that we are sacrificing some of our best and brightest for an undefined cause.
God Bless and Keep our Troops!
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:38PM
Ok, let's try that. Only instead of Fort Kandahar let's rename it, Dien Bien Phu, in memory of one of the great battles in South East Asia, and as forts likely to end the same way.
Louis Jenkins| 10.18.10 @ 8:36AM
Yes it is Obama's war (now) and he's trying to get us out but not appear to be in a hurry. Our men and women have steered the course albeit not a straight one, but they shall remain blameless. Rather, it is the politician's that, as usual, threw a mickiefin into the machinery. Money is to be made by Black Water, et al, just look at the number of contractors backing up the US military. Better it was a full military operation. Time to get out and take care of the business at home, as much as I'm embarressed to say it. The military's one purpose is to tear things up, not to rebuild.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.18.10 @ 10:33AM
Does anyone...
Have the troop levels at their fingertips for Afghanistan during the Bush years?
Relatively low as I recall after the first punch.
That might be the answer. We had enough troops there to suppress the AlQueda and kick out the Taliban. Perhaps that should be our limited objective.
john| 10.18.10 @ 1:58PM
yes, they were much lower than now. I do believe that after Obama saw the Bush surge in Iraq work ( the one that he and many others said would not) he decided to do much the same in Afganistan. He somewhat kept his promise about getting out combat troops from Iraq, but moved them to Afg'stan. I do hope he remembers what happened when the Russians were there with their high troop levels. We should not be having such a high number of troops, yet as many have noted, precision strikes and tactical work would more than likely be the best option.
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:42PM
What worked in Afghanistan was Patraeus reversing pretty much all of Rumsfeld's strategy. The surge alone would not have worked. It was the change in leadership.
What Obama saw was the reversal of Rumsfeld's strategy that worked, and that's what he went with.
Bush's troop levels were much lower, and that's why Bin Laden is alive today, and still threatening the US.
Bob From District 9| 10.22.10 @ 12:45PM
We did not need to suppress Al Qaeda, we needed to kill Al Qaeda. Bush let them live, and all the deaths that followed are blood on his hands.
The Clinton administration handed Bush a plan to suppress Al Qaeda the day he took office. The Neocons didn't want Al Qaeda, they wanted Iraq. So they blew off the Clinton administration plan and 9-11 happened. Then 4500+ deaths in Iraq and 600 in Afghanistan.
Bush supporters, wash you hands all you want, the blood won't come off.
Jarbo| 10.18.10 @ 10:54AM
Oh darn. When I saw the headline "Obama's War," I thought it was about his War on Prosperity. Never mind.
SpiralArchitect| 10.18.10 @ 2:06PM
Touche!
Derek Leaberry| 10.18.10 @ 11:01AM
How can a nation that is essentially bankrupt continue to "nation building?" It can't in the long run. Although the 2010 elections unites conservatives of almost all stripes, expect centrifugal forces to develop within conservatism on the concept of "nation building" and hyper-vigorous military responses wished for by neo-conservatives.
Margie| 10.18.10 @ 12:51PM
"Thar's Neo-cons in them thar hills!"
dunce| 10.18.10 @ 11:26AM
The concept of limited warfare has has been around since before clausewitz book on war.The results of this in practice is seen in north korea.Perhaps the 100 years war in europe is a better example.
Kenny| 10.18.10 @ 12:26PM
Afred Regnery has it exactly right.
Nation building is a fools errand, and the tolerance for it in Afghanistan and Iraq is coming to an abrupt end among the American people.
Then, NATO and other so-called alliances have to be looked at to, at the very least, make sure that the freeoaders like Germany, France, etc. finally start to carry their share of the burden which they hasven't since the 1940's.
chris| 10.18.10 @ 1:52PM
obama will withdraw most of the troops before the 2012 election. he will say we accomplished our goals, declare "victory" but not use the word victory. the situation on the ground will be worse then that it is now, or was under bush. another 500 to 1000 soldiers will die, more wounded. since we will withdraw later, we should withdraw now and spare our soldiers, and not use their lives for obama's politics. he is not interested in winning, and if you do not intend to win, then get out.
The Big E| 10.18.10 @ 2:45PM
". . . if you do not intend to win, then get out."
Amen! Let me repeat that. Amen!
hondr| 10.18.10 @ 1:57PM
It's Obama's war, no doubt about that. He campaigned on it, and now he's pushed more troops into it.
And now, it's just a matter of time before sober voices in Congress begin hanging it around his neck, because that's where it rightly belongs.
To send over additional troops, while simultaneously announcing a withdrawal date? That's just plain dumb. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
SpiralArchitect| 10.18.10 @ 2:09PM
That is clearly outlined in the Jihadist's Handbook wouldn't you think?
Likely B.O. has a copy commited to memory.
jeff | 10.18.10 @ 4:33PM
i do believe the 911 terriosts learened how to fly in florida not the caves of afghanistan!!!!
Gran Torino| 10.18.10 @ 10:14PM
Jeff,
That's right! The bullshit that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" has gotten old. Guess what, folks? They're already here!!! As Intelligent Design put it, the terrorists have been walking across our southern border. I know Mayan Indians from the Yucatan that have a 6th grade education, and they were able to cross their own country and then come up into ours. Do you think some of Al Qaeda were able to do so, also? Another point: $250,000,000 a day? $250 million a day? WTF!!! We talk about this crap like it was Monopoly money!!! Recently I heard that around $850,000.00 of the stimulus package has gone into teaching black males in Africa how to wash their balls after having sex so they don't get AIDS!!! Did I hear correctly that 40,000,000 Americans now live on food stamps? We need to leave that hellhole called Afghanistan!!! I will end with a quote from that great American Pat Buchanan: "We can thank God (those of us who still believe in Him) for that great equalizer-dimwittedness-which has played a great role in the terrorist's demise." Thank God that one of these idiots couldn't light his shoe, another couldn't light his underwear (Fruit of the Boom?), and the other idiot couldn't blow up Times Square. We've gotten lucky. One of these days...
PCC| 10.18.10 @ 5:28PM
There is no good reason why U.S. and allied soldiers should be fighting and dying in the Af-Pak shithole. Troops out now!
Korengali| 10.18.10 @ 7:20PM
Please understand that I can't leave now without victory. My brothers' souls are here in perpetuity, their wives and children wander in sadness having buried their beloved, now in vain. I exist for badal as my native country swore in effect a blood oath to exterminate al qeada and its enablers. To whom exactly shall I assign the dishonor of this proposed retreat? Will your teeth gnash when this ghostly enemy lances life once more again on our home soil? When will you realize that this fight ends only when one ideology is vanquished to a man? Will twilight befall our western love of life signaling the grey dawn of sharia imposed upon your children? I advise you all, once again, to read and absorb the terrible realities blowing toward us on the shamals of islam. "Repentance" and "The Spoils of War" included in a certain religious text should get your attention if my words are inadequate.
PCC| 10.18.10 @ 8:33PM
Dear Korengali,
Your words are indeed inadequate.
If you really believe that "this fight ends only when one ideology is vanquished to a man", then do it on your own dime and with your own blood, mister.
Special forces, drone attacks and, if need be, long-range bombing, are good enough for me.
Heywood| 10.19.10 @ 12:10AM
We only needed what we started out there with - small footprint, no nation building and protect the main highway from Kabul to Pakistan. Finding OBL is pointless and making that a national project wasn't a good idea to begin with--only one man and we've just elevated his stature. He's probably dead by now anyway.
Doss| 10.19.10 @ 2:09AM
U never win this one. Terrorist Republic of Pakisthan is milking out your tax payers money. Pak never allow you to taste the success. Wait and see. Your gov will give more billions and then trillions on the coming monthS. God bless USA.
RJ| 10.19.10 @ 3:29AM
A sobering commentary, which rings true, in particular the following statements by Mr. Regnery: (1) "To the president, the war in Afghanistan is a domestic political issue." and (2) "The costs of this war to the United States are huge." A foreign war should be prosecuted solely on national security grounds, not domestic political advantage and to maintain our security we need to carefully conserve our power. How wasteful and reckless our society has become.
I recall an observation from Will Durant discussing ancient Greek societies that many forms of government can be good, but that they all are doomed when the governing class starts follows the path of placing their personal interests over the welfare of the society. We are living in such an environment and time is short to reform our ways.
Paleo Joe| 10.19.10 @ 5:53AM
Welcome to Sanityville, everyone.
Nice of you to join us!
proreason| 10.19.10 @ 3:00PM
Hear hear.
There are two overwhelming reasons victory in Afghanistan isn't possible at this time:
1. The President is an idiot and
2. The US has been brainwashed into thinking we cannot do what is required to win.
Since only #1 is likely to change, the only wise course of action is to declare victory and leave. No more heroic lives should be sacrificed for a black hole.
If necessary, we can return for another 2 months to clean out the worst of the debris whenever nececessary.
Matt Andersson| 10.19.10 @ 3:45PM
The American Spectator
In re: "Obama's War," October 2010, Alfred S. Regnery
Sirs:
Mr. Regnery makes a compelling argument for exit. However, when he states that "Afghanistan has little strategic value" he may be overlooking at least two central issues that continue to sustain and reinforce organized support for this military prosecution.
First, Afghanistan is largely considered a Russian geo-political asset and thus, is under contention by various parties that seek to influence, contain or control it. It also has certain geographic value due to its position in certain oil and gas distribution routings.
Second, and most centrally, Afghanistan is the world's largest agricultural producer of opium. According to the UN, 93% of opiates on the world market originate in Afghanistan (over 80% of refined heroin sold in the US originates there as well) and amount to well over half of the country's GDP. Its annual harvest generates at least $100 Billion in black market revenue, the vast majority of which is highly fungible into various state, military and para-military activities, including to various US and EU entities, among others.
According to the UK's Telegraph, heroin production in Afghanistan has increased 40-fold over the last 5 years through over 400 Afghan processing centers.
The most valuable "pipelines" in Afghanistan do not consist of regional oil or gas distribution, but international heroin delivery, with an equally impressive international distribution of resultant hard currency.
For these reasons, among others, this is hardly "Obama's Afghan war" but merely one of a number of strategic programs over which he is merely a retail public spokesman and institutional conduit.
That Mr. Regnery would so easily ignore such obvious and explanatory issues speaks either to naivete or journalistic simplicity, neither of which serve well the readers of the American Spectator.
Matt Andersson
Chicago, IL
Viiit| 10.20.10 @ 7:24AM
Just wanted to comment on the arrogant, unpleasant tone of Matt Andersson's comment.
To me his article is interesting and worthwhile reading, ever if it did not address ALL the points of interest.
Matt Andersson| 10.19.10 @ 4:02PM
Post-Script:
And lest the US public forget, Iran is conveniently surrounded and wedged with intensive, diversified US troops, hard and soft assets, extensive tactical weaponry, intel and supplies to the west in Iraq, to the south in the Gulf of Oman, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Saudi Arabia and of course to the east in Afghanistan, with over 100,000 troops, tactical weapons and deep supply lines there.
Israel is all set.
Gran Torino| 10.20.10 @ 12:34AM
If I remember right, there were two objectives when we started this mess in Afghanistan - take out the Taliban and establish democracy. The first one is possible, but the 2nd one...These dune coons are not capable of having a democratic society. It's not compatible with Sharia law. They are highly motivated because as we have heard a million times, if they die fighting the "infidels", they'll get paradise and the 70 virgins. Unless, of course, we cover their dead corpses with bacon...I'm serious. Defiled with pig - no paradise. Now they won't be so anxious to die, get it?
Viiit| 10.20.10 @ 7:18AM
Afghanistan war can be won only as a part of a bigger victory over Islam.
Yes, Islam, not "terrorism", "Islamism", or the "Radical Islam", but Islam as such.
Islam is the ideology that keeps Afghans in the Middle Ages. Afghanistan in only quantitatively different from other Islamic states, but not qualitatively. The quality is that of backwardness, poverty, oppression of women, theocracy, extremely poor education (they study Koran and very little else), filth, diseases, lack of basic freedoms, especially the freedom of expression.
Of course this is very hard to accept in our "politically correct" times, where all cultures are supposedly equal. The paradox is, that the politically correct liberals, think of themselves as "progressives" but if all cultures were equal, then there could be no progress. This however is to "logically complex" a thought for most liberals.
Sooner or later, we will be forced to acknowledge the truth about Islam: It is a disease. Muhammad was a terrorist and the Muslims are his followers.
It is a tragedy that such thing should happen to Afghanistan, which once was a very cultured Hindu and Buddhist country. In ancient texts, Kabul was described as worlds most beautiful and cleanest city. But Hindus and Buddhist were slaughtered. The very mountain chain that goes through Afghanistan is called "Hindu Kush", which means "The Slaughter of Hindus".
The war with Islam CAN be won, once we acknowledge it.
And primarily this is an information war. When enough people in the Muslim countries will learn the truth about Muhammad, they will reach the critical mass and start leaving. First secretly (as to not be beheaded) then openly, and proudly.
The beautiful, intelligent, artistic Afghan people deserve better than living under the Islamic oppression. Especially their women!
chris haynes| 10.20.10 @ 10:51AM
I'm astonished that anyone thinks America, with 3000 abortions every day, should be preaching to anyone.
But its not just preaching. Some are calling for wars to spread our barbarity.
Most Moslems hold that all men have an inalienable right to life, as it is a gift of God.
Not Gulianni, Kirk, Scott Brown, Condoleeza Rice, and Lieberman and all the prominent Democrats. Nosiree. They tell us that children can be killed, on a whim, and by the millions. They have brought America the greatest holocaust in history.
We need to clean things up at home.
RCV| 10.20.10 @ 2:56PM
Then head on over to one of those Muslim theocracies you apparently so admire.
WeMust Resist| 10.21.10 @ 12:24AM
Thanks to Alfred Regnery for some overdue common sense. What is our strategic goal? To disarm the Taliban? to prevent the export of terrorists? To secure the Kharzai Govt against all internal and external enemies? What are we fighting for? Our choice of strategic goal dictates our tactics. What are our tactics currently good for? Killing the Taliban. So what? How does that help? It only helps if we do it every spring and summer until the end of time. We should concentrate on stopping the export of terror and heroin. That does not require a war.
Vaemar| 10.22.10 @ 10:36AM
I have never seen the plain fact mentiuoned that Afghanistan was stable, relatively peaceful, and successfully modernising when it had a KING. Restoring it as a kingdom is not just the best way out, it is probably the only way out.