-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Opposition to the Obama administration’s build-up in Afghanistan comes not just from the Left. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a certified Cold Warriorer who supported the mujahideen, advocates a different strategy. Reports Mother Jones:
Even now, Rohrabacher grins when recalling the overthrow of the Taliban. “Everything was ours,” he says. “We had the total faith of the vast majority of Afghans.” But, he adds, it all went sour when the administration decided to shift gears. “The turning point was when George W. Bush through his hubris decided he was going to-I can just see him saying, ‘We’re on a roll, let’s go into Iraq.’ We didn’t have the ability to sustain large-scale military operations in Iraq and still rebuild Afghanistan.” Still, Rohrabacher was a steadfast backer of the war during the Bush years, a stance he now considers “a mistake.”
Today, Rohrabacher vows to vote against any funding for Obama’s surge in Afghanistan. Instead he favors, perhaps unsurprisingly, a revival of the Reagan Doctrine. He regards the Karzai government as hopelessly corrupt and sees a decentralized power structure as the only solution. Rather than putting more American troops in harm’s way, he’d prefer that the US reinvigorate and perhaps arm Afghanistan’s militias (including those associated with his ex-Northern Alliance friends)-the same forces the US and international forces initially tried to dismantle. And instead of spending some $33 billion on the surge, Rohrabacher wants to allocate $5 billion for “buying the good will of local village leaders” while also embedding small US units in villages. “We have to have our people become part of the Afghan family,” he says. Rohrabacher has distributed a blueprint-authored by a Special Forces major whose unit developed a close rapport with an eastern tribe-for doing just that to all of his colleagues.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/07/dana-rohrabacher-opposes-afgha
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Public Nuisances
- Obama’s Drone War
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Crusader| 4.7.10 @ 8:25AM
Hmmm, arm the militias eh? I guess seeing as how that worked SO WELL the first time we should do it again?
There's only one way to deal with muslims. Few in America and fewer still in the military and none in DC have the stones to do it though.
Red Phillips | 4.7.10 @ 9:25AM
As I have said before, this is further evidence that non-interventionism is on the rise on the right. It doesn't take a genius to understand that America is broke and can not afford anymore crusades to make the world safe for democracy. (Besides the fact that such crusades have never been conservative, nor constitutionally warranted, nor Christian Just War warranted, nor necessary for our safety.) Rep. Rohrabacher is just an early example in a long series of dominos that are going to start falling our way, and there is nothing the interventionists and their neocon brain trusts can do about it. (Well the neocons can and probably will switch their allegiance back to the internationalist Democrat Party where it belongs when they see they are losing their grip on the GOP.) Get used to it interventionists. You have had your day, and you have bankrupted this country. Now it is time for a sensible foreign policy of America First and minding our own business.
Nick| 4.7.10 @ 5:49PM
Mr. Phillips,
Most conservatives don't support Operation Iraqi Freedom because it will "make the world safe for democracy."
This is a straw man you paleos constantly use to TRY to make your points. As you have read numerous times, most people here don't defend people like the David twins, Frum and Brooks, or Kissenger, or Lindsey Grahamnesty, or any other "TR" worshiper.
We support the war because we thought it was not in the United State's interest to roll the dice, and take a chance that Saddam would take the first shot at us. It was purely for self-defense reasons. Period.
Especially, after he had already given us numerous, justified, reasons to remove him.
I know you know this, we have argued about it before.
So, why do you continue to use this canard?
Siegfried X| 4.7.10 @ 6:31PM
This article is rather confused. The goal of any counter-insurgency strategy, including the surges in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is to enable and support friendly local forces. Even if we choose to mostly support regional militia forces instead of Karzai's army, a surge still might be needed. It would be to temporarily re-occupy territory which the Taliban grabbed, and to train the friendly forces.
So it isn't an either-or situation.
DumpDanaHB| 4.8.10 @ 12:38PM
I live in his district and he is an embarrassment. He keeps getting re-elected due to gerrymandering and people voting for the (R) instead of his policies; and as such is a symbol of everything wrong with the GOP. He was for Bush's reckless invasions without paying for them and excused torture as fraternity pranks http://tinyurl.com/ye658ps and now finds his "principles". Its sad to see a party stand for torture, wiretapping the whole country, authorizing illegal searches and detentions without due process, voiding the Geneva Convention and Habeas Corpus, running up debt while cutting taxes to the top 1% during two wars now say they are for the constitution and fiscal sanity. Too late, these GOP Senators and Congressmen like Rohrabacher are only in it for the power and the money they can give to their industry of choice.
Its no wonder he wants to find the new Bin Ladin and give him seed money, they never learn and in 20 years we will have to disarm that one too.
DougBuchanan.com | 4.8.10 @ 7:54PM
The wars were lost the day we attacked countries that did not attack the US, just to trade-out local corrupt leaders with US puppets that the locals will not retain after their US thugs inherently leave when the US taxpayers get tired of paying for these Presidential Ego Gratification wars.
The squabbles of the useless Congressmen only identify the general ignorance of Americans who voted for the DemocanRepublicrats.
Enjoy the show.
DougBuchanan.com
notfooledbyW| 4.8.10 @ 11:35PM
Nick, claims: "We support the war because we thought it was not in the United State's interest to roll the dice, and take a chance that Saddam would take the first shot at us. It was purely for self-defense reasons. Period."
It can't be for self defense reasons. Bush told us live on TV on March 17, 2003 exactly why he decided to attack Iraq.
He claimed to have intelligence by other nations and our guys that 'left no doubt' that Iraq was 'concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised' from the 200 strong UN inspectors who were 'the best intelligence source on WMD capabilities of Iraq.
The inspectors had a few weeks prior to Bush's declaration of war that they were finding no evidence of WMD and that the regime had cooperated on process from the start of inspections in December 2002 and had begun to proactively cooperate on substance on all outstanding issues.
So preventing a strike was not the issue, Nick. Bush said it was the act of concealing WMD from UN inspectors.
Bush and Bush Iraq war supporters have pivoted to the 'erection of democracy' justification for all those who've died and all the money spent, because they don't have one ounce of evidence that any intelligence agency provided 'doubtless' proof that Iraq was hiding illegal weapons from UN inspectors.
You'd better get with the rest of the right wingers who are fond of the US invasion of Iraq, Nick.
Self-Defense is most lame.
Bush made it lame when he asked Congress to authorize war if he promised to go to the UN and get them to disarm Iraq peacefully.
Nick| 4.9.10 @ 1:11AM
Fool,
Almost everything you have written is a lie.
From Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's remarks to the United Nations Security Council:
"For example, let me focus on the now famous declaration that Iraq submitted to this Council on December 7th. Iraq never had any intention of complying with this Council's mandate. Instead, Iraq planned to use the declaration to overwhelm us and to overwhelm the inspectors with useless information about Iraq's permitted weapons so that we would not have time to pursue Iraq's prohibited weapons. Iraq's goal was to give us in this room, to give those of us on this Council, the false impression that the inspection process was working.
"You saw the result. Dr. Blix pronounced the 12,200-page declaration rich in volume but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence. Could any member of this Council honestly rise in defense of this false declaration?
"Everything we have seen and heard indicates that instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing."
Also, I think for myself, as my previous post indicates.
notfooledbyW| 4.10.10 @ 9:25AM
Nick, is this a lie? / Bush told us live on TV on March 17, 2003 exactly why he decided to attack Iraq. He claimed to have intelligence by other nations and our guys that 'left no doubt' that Iraq was 'concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised' from the 200 strong UN inspectors who were 'the best intelligence source on WMD capabilities of Iraq.
Nick accused me of writing lies, I just can't find any evidence of it.
Nick also calls this a lie. It is not a lie. If it is Nick should provide evidence that UNMOVIC and the IAEA said something contrary to this:
The inspectors had a few weeks prior to Bush's declaration of war that they were finding no evidence of WMD and that the regime had cooperated on process from the start of inspections in December 2002 and had begun to proactively cooperate on substance on all outstanding issues.
notfooledbyW| 4.9.10 @ 10:10PM
Nick, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's remarks to the United Nations Security Council was in January 2003. I am talking about what happened after that.
Powell was not the Chief UN weapons inspector, Dr Blix and El Baradai were tasked with making the determination on Iraq's disarmament.
El Baradai gave Iraq a thumbs up on nuke disarmaent and Blix by the end of February declared no 'smokin' gun' found and announced that Iraq was cooperating proactively.
Bush offered to leave Hussein in power on March 7, 2003, which fully debunks your entire 'national security threat' scenario, Nick,.
Bush said in a draft resolution on March 7, 2003 that war was avoidable if UNMOVIC declared Iraq disarmed in ten days.
Bush's mistake was he accepted Saddam could stay in power but the onus for war or peace was on the UN inspectors.
The inspectors said it would take a few months and to be sure declaring Iraq was disarmed they could not do it in ten days.
Bush kicked the inspectors out when the UN did not submit to his rediculous demand.
Again, Nick Powell said this in January not March. Dr Blix reached an entirely opposite conclusion after Powell made these remarks.
"Everything we have seen and heard indicates that instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing."
Blix said the opposite thirty days later and that is the truth Nick.
Step up and get informed if you truly think for yourself.
notfooledbyW| 4.9.10 @ 10:17PM
Again, Nick Powell said this in January not March. Dr Blix reached an entirely opposite conclusion after Powell made these remarks.
"Everything we have seen and heard indicates that instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing."
And Powell was lying on that day because Blix was already reporting that Iraq was cooperating fully on "PROCESS" from the beginning.
If you studied Blix's remarks from beginning to end you'd realize that Blix was referring to what he called 'cooperation on substance' (attitude) when he said that cooperation was not immediate.
And Im sure you read on Fox News in December 2002 that Saddam Hussein through he Chief Science adviser who was dealing with the UN, that he was willing to allow thousands of CIA and FBI and US military WMD experts enter Iraq to point to the locations where the US and UK thought they were supposed to be.
The White House declined the offer by claiming they wanted the UN to handle it.
So why didn't Bush let the UN handle it?