Tuesday, September 22, 2009


More Evidence of Liberal Dissembling and Projection

Remember when all the Democrats opposed the Iraq War right after it became difficult--What did they say? Afghanistan was the real war, the Good War, the central front, the necessary war where we should have put all our efforts. President Obama has said just those things even recently. See here.
So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you.
Well, as we on the right wing suspected, it was all a ploy, a front for making political points and pretending to be butch and patriotic. But don't let me put words in their mouths. Here is the quote of the day from the left wing site Hullabaloo via Ace of Spades.
Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

There have been many campaign promises "adjusted" since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments [sic] it has blithely turned aside in the interest of "pragmatism."

Here is what Ace said:

But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

You claimed to support a war in which American soldiers were fighting and dying, leaving friends and limbs on the battlefield, as a cynical political strategy?

You... um... voiced support of a real serious-as-death war to cadge votes out of a duped public?

We won't forget, champ. And we won't let you forget, either.

Again we see a leftist projecting his pathological darkness on to others. They accused Bush of fighting wars for this very reason. And now, when it's safe to say so (they think), they concede: We supported a war for the reason we accused Bush of doing so for 8 years.



Certainly it is time to formulate a coherent strategy for Afghanistan, something that was completely and utterly lacking in thought and execution during the Bush administration.

Unfortunately we are now seeing the dread spring, summer, and fall Taliban offensive, which appears to be a localized guerrilla war that is difficult to win.

My thought is that most Taliban fighters are economically rather than ideologically motivated. We need to arrive a strategy whreby these guys can "punch a time clck" rather than pick up a weapon.

I'm going to agree with Tony on this one.

For all the praise draped on "the surge" the real turning point in Iraq was "the awakening" which, at the end of the day, is really about paying guys who used to be shooting at American soldiers to point their guns at the really bad guys (or at least not at American and Iraq soldiers).

As a wise man once said, "Money talks and something else walks."
You continue to rewrite history, T. We rode to a pretty complete victory over the Taliban et al. on the shoulders of Afghan fighters, the Northern Alliance. There was no one left to fight in Afghanistan for years. But Afghanistan, not the best of places even in ordinary times, is a complete mess after invasion and destruction by the Soviet Union followed by a near constant civil war. It's taken a long time to get a real Afghan army and police force off the ground. It is going to take a really long time to implement the 'paycheck' strategy. I'm willing to do it, but America has not shown a lot of stomach for such long wars. Example Viet Nam. So, in summary, the Bush Administration had a brilliant and very successful 'coherent strategy' for the defeat of the Taliban in 2001 and then no real need for much of a strategy for several years after as there were almost no Taliban fighting in Afghanistan. That's not a 'completely and utterly lacking in thought' strategy during the Bush Administration, certainly not during the whole of it. But, Pakistan failed to eradicate the Taliban from its territories. I'm not saying they didn't try, but they failed, largely, and I do not know how hard they tried. So the Taliban has been coming back in. We have avoided major contact for some of that latter period of the BA, probably to keep casualties down. I disagree with that strategy, but it's not completely and utterly lacking in thought--still, not the best either. The general in charge then was a tank guy. Might not have been the best choice for dedicated counterinsurgency. The new guy, McChrystal, is a special ops guy. I'm willing to let him have a real, supported, 'surge' type change in stragegy and see how it goes. Looks like Obama is getting cold feet, however. Thanks for the comment. You're in my thoughts and payers.
Mike, the awakening you reference was not merely a result of money, although that always seems to help with some people; it came in part from the mad dog tactics of the foreign AQM types as well. They became so awful that even their Muslim "brothers" (not actually related--that would have been an entirely different matter) in Iraq couldn't stand by any more and turned on them.
As I've said, the surge change of tactics in Afghanistan should be dedicated killing the Taliban and al Qaeda types who come back over the border. That is the shortest route to rendering Afghanistan not a terrorist haven for a long time after we leave. In retrospect, however, I'm not sure that the safe haven in Afghanistan was all that necessary to the successful 9/11 attacks. So I won't be sad if we leave Afghanistan half done except it will be properly perceived as weak horse activity on our part. Thanks for your comment as well. Hope things are good with you.

We should have used the lull in Taliban activity to build roads; drill wells; and erect schools.

Instead, we did little if anything in this regard, mostly because of our resources were sucked into the black hole that was Iraq.

I need not repeat the inherent problems of nepotism and corruption in tribal societies. Your point about AQM is well taken. Had they acted more like members of the tribe and less like mad dogs, we would still be fighting them in Sunni areas of Iraq.

Look to the wider history, rather than just to the points with which to bash off the political scene Bush. There were huge pledges of money for reconstruction from many western nations. That money didn't go to Iraq, it just never showed up. Difficult to pin the reneging on Bush, but you can always try. Tnanks for the follow up. I think you're right in the main, but al Qaeda is a mad dog, difficult to act like a lamb for a long time.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?