I remember when we got into Afghanistan and Iraq. The Republicans were stoked about the wars and defended them all through the Bush years.When liberals cried out against the war, conservatives smeared them with the “cut and run” label and accused them of being weak on terror. Argument after argument was presented as to why the wars were just and why we had to remain.
Now that they have become Obama’s wars, the Republicans seem to have shed their hawk feathers for the gentle raiment of the dove. To be fair, the Republican’s love for the wars had begun to fade towards the end of the Bush era, but many pundits still defended them (if only from reflex).
On the face of it, the switch can be seen as politics as usual: the wars are Obama’s now and the Republicans must oppose him on all things, even the wars they started and defended for years. As such, the principle they are operating on is the principle of opposing Obama, rather than the principle of what is best for America. After all, they were for the wars when they belonged to George.
Of course, the situation has changed and perhaps the Republican shift is based on actual changes in these wars, rather than the change in who sits in the oval office. If so, perhaps we should head the Republican call and give peace a chance. If a Republican gets elected in 2012 and then owns the wars, it will be interesting to see if the Republican dove remains a dove or tears away the false plumage to reveal the classic hawk.
You intentionally confuse the issues, Mike. it’s very sad and you know exactly what you’re doing. As Rush Limbaugh says: “I’ll never be able to retire.”
The surge in Iraq worked. We won; the Iraqi government now controls its territory. Obama was dead against that surge.
Obama was for the Afghan surge, which did not and will not work.
He got it exactly wrong.
There was no way we could leave Iraq in 2007. We could easily leave Afghanistan in 6 months and it would pretty much be the same.
Look at my blog; not once did I say this surge in Afghanistan would work or was a good thing. That was up to a year before I deployed.
Several conservatives, like Krauthammer and George Will were against the surge. This isurgency is very different.
“You intentionally confuse the issues”….He can’t help it. He’s a sophist. It’s what they do. What’s really sad is he’s not all that good at it.
It’s easy to say the surge worked in Iraq—after the surge. I’d like more convincing that it’ll stick. Before the surge, its success was a mere surmise, not unlike so many other decisions in war and economics. Like picking a winning stock.
Here’s Petraeus’ (architect of the Iraq surge and generally considered an above average leader) , last year, on the Afghanistan surge:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081501514.html
What a sucker, right?
The Sec’y of Defense for both the Iraq and the Afghanistan surge was Robert Gates. He’s a guy whose reputation in the intelligence community and the defense community is above average, agreed?Speaking of the Middle East upheavals, he said: “I think we should be alert to the fact that outcomes are not predetermined, and that it’s not necessarily the case that everything has a happy ending … We are in dark territory and nobody knows what the outcome will be.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/Mar/24/Robert-Gates-near-retirement-remains-cautious-and-candid.ashx#axzz1QyjITwiK
“. . .outcomes are not predetermined. . .NOBODY knows what the outcome will be:” For those who care about words, note that Gates does not say that “THE outcomes are predetermined”.specifically referring to Libya, Tunisia, etc. He makes a statement that most of us seem to agree with. Outcomes are not predetermined. If they were, why would we bother doing anything? Outcomes in Iraq; outcomes in Afghanistan; outcomes in the Middle East; outcomes in the world economy. It’s an amusement park ride folks. If you think you know exactly what you’re going to experience, why waste money on tickets?
magus, I hope your crystal balls fail*, once again. Perhaps, despite the fact that we fought in Afghanistan with one hand tied behind our back from ’03 until the surge because our military resources were arguably being misused elsewhere little progress was made there. . . perhaps we’ll succeed. You’re on the scene and, if I’m reading you correctly, you’re predicting failure. I hope for the sake of Afghan women, and the Afghan people, and whatever cause we entered Afghanistan for in the first place— a cause that seemed to have the support of the majority of the public and the majorities of both parties at the time –that you’re wrong.
*Fukushima’s ^still^ in the news. see the Economist link in my second comment to Mike’s “And then I stopped reading Newsweek” article.
Oh yeah–Ralph Peters was against the Afghanistan surge from the beginning, too.
Mr. Bush ( or,more accurately, the people pulling his strings) included a key element of surge strategy that BHO neglected in Afghanistan.
http://chamblee54.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/negative-attitude-of-the-media/
Iraq is the only war the Republicans “owned,” despite the bipartisan vote authorizing that war. Afghanistan was always the “good war” the Dems supported completely. Libya is completely owned by Obama as he has not deigned to consult with Congress.
It was no accident the Republicans focused on Iraq, because that was a winnable war. Afghanistan is not winnable, and will never be winnable. We should declare our objectives met and bring our people home.
No denying the Republicans, with Bush’s “guidance” “owned” the Iraq war. ^And ^there’s no denying that the war in Afghanistan was approved by both parties and the American public two years before Bush’s war. Splitting our military capabilities and sending most of them to a war of choice rather than focusing on the war in Afghanistan —does that create any doubts in your mind as to whether the war in Afghanistan might have , indeed, been winnable at several levels (eradication of Taliban, creating a government and government forces that would be effective even after our forces leave, eliminating al-Qaeda’s safe haven. . .)
How was progress in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2003? Was the progress made during that time continued from 2003-2006? Where were 100k++ American troops fighting from ’03-’06 when they could have been fighting in Afghanistan?
I’m happy you didn’t bring up the fact that Russia entered Afghanistan and was mired in an unsuccessful conflict there for 9+ years. Many think that’s a good reason for declaring this war “not winnable”. You may be right that it’s not winnable, but the Russian loss is not a good reason–esp. since we gave real support to the other side- mujaheddin included. And it’s not unwinnable just because we lost the Vietnam war. So why is it unwinnable even at the level of the definition of winning I provided at the end of my paragraph 1 above.? ^And^ do you think your answer would have been the same if we had focused our full attention on that war and ignored Bush’s folly (I may be a “won” war, though I’m not convinced yet, but it was a dumb and arguably wrong thing to do when we had a more important and justified war to fight.
frk, haven’t you figured out that the majority of people in that part of the world actually *like* the Taliban?
TJ: Hmm. Let me take a moment to digest that. Gulp. Yum.
When you say “that part of the world” I assume you mean the country that’s the subject of this evolving discussion, right? When you say majority, you may be correct. Shiites and women and young people who might desire an education are probably not among the majority in Afghanistan. Poor dumb s**s that they are. Is it a large majority that loves the Taliban (rather than fearing them)? An interesting string from which to suspend your support for abandonment of the original goals of the war.
So how many would you ^guess^ are in the majority? Let’s say that majority, whatever it is, in a backward country, dislikes US and the allies. Solution? Since the Commies couldn’t win there, it’s time to pack up the old drones and battleships and armored vehicles and other superior weaponry and cut tail and run. Time now–after spending billions and billions of dollars– to abandon what I thought were our original goals: 1/Eliminate al-Queda’s safe haven (they’ll only come back when we leave anyway—–Isn’t that a line I heard from republicans when they supported the war?
2/Capture bin Laden–Whoops!He daid. At least we can cross that one off.
3/ Destroy alQaeda.
4/ Get rid of the Taliban–likely by giving the legitimate government an opportunity to build forces to govern itself.
Now we can’t get out of there fast enough. What’s up, honestly? Changing conditions on the ground?
Excellent interview on CSPAN with Leslie Gelb regarding Afghanistan. It probably won’t embed properly, but I will try.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=300225-3
If that doesn’t work: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ReducingU&showFullAbstract=1
Second link worked fine.
i’ve watched about 12 mins so far. Here’s what I’ve gleaned:
“The main reasons we went in have ,^more or less^ been accomplished”. His summary of progress so far, honestly seems to support the “less” rather than the “more” side.
Part of the goal was to bring their government to a state to deal with alQueda. He says later we’ve trained many soldiers to do just that. Now the people and the army have to bring themselves to a point to accomplish that on their own. I agree. But he doesn’t say they ^can’t^–at least not to this point in the program–and most importantly he doesn’t say they likely won’t because most of them ” actually ‘like’ the Taliban”.
I agree that our foreign policy is tied up in Afghanistan, and I’ve tried to make my case for why it’s still tied up there after these many many years (as George Will opines).
The following statement baffled me, frankly:
“Listen to the military that we got into this war. They didn’t want it in the first place.”
This is the war in Afghanistan, right? A war that was an immediate reaction to 9/11. The killing of 4000 US citizens on American soil. The military “didn’t want it”? Wha’?
And…Limbaugh campaigned to make sure John McCain was not elected. I didn’t entirely agree with that at the time, because I think America got the worst end of the deal. But McCain’s completely off his rocker when it comes to picking who to bomb and who not to.
America will sorely miss Robert Gates. One fo the few honest, intelligent people in our government.
McCain seems to be becoming a parody of his previous self. This is a sad thing.
Now, ^here’s^ a protester ya can sink yer teeth into. . The right good Dr. Terry Jones::
and here:
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=2821
I’ll call your Terry Jones and raise you a Nambla:
Not much of a raise. . .
Jones does his thing in the name of God. NAMBLA perverts don’t. Uunless some of those slimy little pr**** have found a Biblical quotation to support their actions :). Have they?
Briefly, so as not to waste your time:
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=2821
I miss the white sheets and hoods, don’t you?
and this
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=2821
Oops. The following was supposed to be the second link in my 11:11 am post:
You win, frk. I can’t top that one.
My fear (or is it a fantasy?): A three-way protest involving
the KKK, Terry Jones, and NAMBLA. . . ?
Have fun: Choose your poison from among the infinite number of whack-job groups out there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/04/ronald-reagan-no-hawk-no-neocon
Nonetheless, he succeeded in avoiding a direct military confrontation. As the liberal US writer Peter Beinart argues in his book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris: “On the ultimate test of hawkdom – the willingness to send US troops into harm’s way – Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totalled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war – the 1986 bombing of Libya – was even briefer.”
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. ~Sun Tzu