While I was decompressing over the weekend, Michael Steele set off a firestorm with his less-than-hawkish comments on Afghanistan. Bill Kristol (Weekly Standard) and Andy McCarthy (NRO – The Corner) – among many others – called on Steele to resign; Dr. Ron Paul came to his defense (Frum Forum).
Meanwhile, the bruhaha has led at least one right-of-center blogger close to home (Chris Beer – Mason Conservative). To date, no one else has picked up on this within the Virginia blogosphere, but Jim Bowden and Jerry Fuhrman lodged their criticisms earlier. As one would expect from the rightosphere, their arguments are cogent, probing, and require an answer.
Unfortunately, save for Furhman (more on him later), their conclusions come from an appalling disregard for the facts on the ground.
Most acknowledge that al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is minimal at most and nominal at least. Unfortunately, far too many have forgotten about the role the Taliban has played in all of this. To hear it from some people (almost all on the left), the Taliban were absentee landlords, bamboozled ideologues, or even innocent bystanders.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Lest we forget (as so many apparently have), the Taliban didn’t ignore al Qaeda; nor did they condone it. They embraced it. They used al Qaedites to enforce their brutal rule over Afghanistan (New York Times). According to some reports (relayed by the BBC), Taliban leader “Mullah” Omar and bin Laden are now related by marriage. It was common knowledge that the Taliban relied on a funding stream from al Qaeda to continue controlling Afghanistan (UPI via Newsmax). Mere weeks before 9/11/01, the Taliban appointed bin Laden as their military commander-in-chief.
Unless and until the Taliban is defeated, the Afghan theatre of the WBK War is neither won nor finished, period. The growing chorus of war critics on the right appear to have forgotten that.
So, with all due respect to Chris, that’s why we’re in Afghanistan. Regarding Jim, if any of the factions we have to appease include the Taliban, then the war is not won (to be fair to Jim, he does not name the Taliban as a faction worthy of bribery or payoff, but by my reading of his post, he leaves the door open).
Or, as Mark Steyn so painfully put it (Macleans):
If the Taliban return to even partial power in Afghanistan, the unctuous State Department spokesmen will make the best of it. But the symbolism will be profound, and devastating in what it says about American will.
As for Jerry, I really have no response for him. It is clear to me he understands fully that the Taliban must be destroyed; he just doesn’t trust this Administration to do it. The closer we get to the arbitrary July 2011 withdrawal deadline, the more I will be compelled to agree with him.
For now, though, I hold out hope that, like just about everything else that has come from the Obama campaign or Administration, that withdrawal, too, will have an “expiration date.” We shall see.
[...] Cross-posted to RWL [...]
What do we do when Al Queida runs from Afghanistan into Pakistan… Somalia… Yemen…etc?
As nasty as the Taliban are (and I agree they are).. there are similar nasty folks in other countries that also cozy up to anti-American bad guys also.
Do ya’ll remember McArthur and the Yalu River?
How about Cambodia and Vietnam?
Are we going to chase Al Queida with our military all over the Middle East and beyond?
I just don’t see it.
And the bad thing about this is that the same ones who want us to do this – well they’re opposed to a tax to pay for it…
how smart is that?
DJ: Assumption is the mother of all screw ups. Don’t assume I’d include the Taliban as one of the warlords who remain. And, of course, I’m not making the policy. Just writing about one way to go.
JAB,
I was fairly sure I didn’t make an assumption one way or the other. The ambiguity was enough to concern me.
Larry,
You’re venturing into silliness again. The Taliban didn’t just “cozy up to anti-American bad guys.” They intertwined themselves with al Qaeda. In fact, the harder we hit the Taliban, the more likely al Qaeda’s other hosts will be more willing to either cut ties (Yemen) and gather the strength to kick them out (Somalia) – or both (Pakistan).
As for the history you cite, I would humbly submit that the last fifty-odd years has shown us that your center-left worldview doesn’t fly anymore. MacArthur, for all his faults, could have spared us the Kimist regime (and spared millions of Koreans from famine, torture, and execution). As for Cambodia and Vietnam, I have two words: Khmer Rouge.
Besides, if revenue bothered you so much, I’d expect you to endorse a capital gains tax cut – a sure-fire revenue generator for decades.
I won’t hold my breath, though.
DJ – thanks for the thoughts.
all due respects – we cannot nation-build the Taliban out of Afghanistan no more than we could the communists out of Korea or Vietnam when those folks are native people who have lived there for generations.
Compare that to an outside group coming to this country to lecture us on how wrong we are and attempt to “nation-build” us to a “better” govt.
It really is an arrogant concept guy.
We’d fight to the last man in this country to oppose such “occupiers” who would seek to impose on us something other than our own self-determination wanted.
I’m amazed also that Conservatives make fund of those to their left as “do-gooders” who want to make the world better …. by taxing others…
and here you guys are doing the same thing on a much more grandiose scale – and because you won’t actually pay the taxes to fund the way – you’ll tax your kids… to pay for it, right?
what say you D.J.?
Are you going to tax the patriotic soliders, their families and their kids to pay for this war?
how fiscally responsible is that?
re: capital gains tax cut.
look see: ” Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950″
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
so what should we do while we wait for the increased revenues to pay for the war to appear?
Should we pay for the way or should we pass that debt on to our kids while we explain to them that “some day” the tax cuts “will work”.
Youse guys are all ideology and no reality.
what do we do with reality in the meantime ?
pay up now or give the bill to your kids?
Larry,
That’s just income taxes, not capital gains – where revenue has risen usually immediately after the rate reduction. I could also argue that reducing the income tax rates themselves will also lead to increased revenue – as also happened in the 1980s (sadly, spending growth lapped revenue growth during that period; Reagan himself in his memoirs called that the greatest failure of his Administration).
Meanwhile, I would note that spending on the WBK War (Iraq and Afghan theaters) has totalled $944 billion from FY01-FY09 (FY10 doesn’t end federally until October) – roughly $105B a year.
The “stimulus” and TARP put together ($1.5 Trillion) blew nearly 50% more funds.
In re Afghanistan, current spending is at roughly $40-45 billion a year. Are you really telling me we can’t find that in an annual budget that is now over $3 trillion?
Sorry, Larry, your attempt to play uber-rationalist falls flat here. If you want to argue the rationale for the WBK War, argue that. Stop trying to use it as cover to raise taxes.
I would also note that I did not call for “nation-building.” I called for the defeat of the Taliban. That may or may not include some “nation-building” (JAB would say no, I’m not sure), but by your comments, you’re blithely assuming that the Afghan people would be happier with the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies than the US. My observations there (including discussions with an Afghan exile) tell me very, very, differently.
Whatever the Afghan people think of us, they hate the al-Qaeda/Taliban occupiers far more (and they consider the Taliban to be Pakistani occupiers). We were able to use a similar situation in Iraq (hatred of the Iranian regime) to pull it out of the fire in 2007.
Oops! Forget the link for my numbers: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
BTW, they project FY01-FY10 spending to be $1.08T. Throw in the supplemental being argued in Congress at present, and it’s at most $1.09T – $109 billion a year on average. Again, in an annual budget of over $3 trillion, $109B in cuts shouldn’t be so hard to find.
But DJ.. you have to VOTE – FOR an unfunded Supplemental for the wars – right?
How can you justify doing that?
Isn’t that fiscally irresponsible just live a real conservative like Ron Paul says?
How can you consider yourself a “real” conservative if you violate your own principles of not paying for what you’re spending – not just during this Presidency but the prior 8 years of Bush – all the blather talk about your hero Reagan (who had his own problems with bailing out banks, eh?).
You’re taxing your kids.. no question about it and giving excuses why…
if you do this for the war how can you try to hold others to similar standards for TARP, etc?
We need a truth-in-nation-building law and a paygo-for-nation-building law.
Then you can tell your kids that even if folks don’t agree with your nation-building ideology, it’s “paid for”.
While we are on the subject.. how come we nation-build some countries and not others?
People have kids in Haiti they cannot afford and they turn them over to orphanages at the rate of 100,000 a year – for others to pay for.
How come our military did not stay there to nation-build?
If Al-Queida set up shop in Haiti would we then need to “nation-build” ?
Would I prefer war supplementals be funded with cuts in the budget? Sure I would, and I’d be happy to support any effort to do that. As far as I know, no one has; someone should. Thanks for that, Larry.
D.J. my man…. you had 8 years of Republican control to do just that.
what happened?
your Republican buddies spent like drunken sailors, did away with paygo, let Freddie/Fannie run amok and ran our economy into a ditch all the while blathering that “deficits don’t matter” as you dumped all of this on your kids…
and now you whine about Obama and your “solution” is to do what? Put the same Republicans back in charge?
ha ha ha
you’re a stitch D.J.
“your Republican buddies spent link drunken sailors”
Now, Larry, please stop with offensive stuff like that. It’s insulting to the Navy . . .
. . . and to drunks.
The party has a better record on F/F. The GOP tried *repeatedly* to fix up the mess that Clinton appointees left there. The Dems stymied them with filibusters every time.
I would also note that, contrary to my initial assertion, there was an effort to pay for the latest supplemental with budget reductions. The sponsors were Tom Coburn and . . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . John McCain.
*That’s* the guy I would have preferred to be in charge right now.
D.J. – are you talking about the same Clinton that left the Republicans a …GASP! SURPLUS which the Republicans promptly turned into a deficit with a majority vote to do away with PAYGO?
You say filibusters to what.. stop Bush and the Republicans from reining in Fannie/Freddie while they were in the process of ruining the economy?
wait…wait.. let’s see.. the standard Republican excuse/blame others was that there was ONE minority congressman named Frank to stopped Bush, the Republican House and the Republican Senate from being fiscally responsible?
and you want these guys back in charge..??
D.J. – these are the guys that handed your kids the “crushing debt” that they now have to pay.
how can you support any group that would do that?
Are you really serious, Larry? The Democrats (Obama version) have added more to the debt in their first two years than Bush did in his entire two terms.
I’ll acknowledge the GOP’s failures. I stay in the party because I’d rather fix them than sit on the sidelines and whine. But the fellows who were the most culpable (Hastert, Frist, and yes, Bush) are all in retirement now. Arlen Specter (one of the worst spenders) crossed over to the Dems.
I’d rather stay with a party that is learning from its mistakes than the current crew, which is only exacerbating them.
….” …. On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants in the nine largest American banks. ”
notice that date D.J. ?
and the truth about the deficit:
“… The simple fact is that Obama inherited a federal deficit of $1.2 trillion on the day he was sworn in last year. Barely two weeks earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular “Budget and Economic Outlook” document, stating:
CBO, Jan. 2009: The federal fiscal situation in 2009 will be dramatically worse than it was in 2008. Under the assumption that current laws and policies remain in place (that is, not accounting for any new legislation), CBO estimates that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, more than two and a half times the size of last year’s.
That $1.2 trillion projected deficit — the result of bills signed by Republican President George W. Bush — grew substantially after Obama signed his stimulus bill and submitted his own budget. But even so, by the time the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, CBO said.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/a-texas-size-whopper/
so the Republicans built up a pretty sizable deficit before this President took office…
and you response is that “Obama made it worse” …
and… the solution was to put John McCain in office with that same Republican Congress in place?
Oh wait – didn’t we put that idea to the voters?
The one guy who could have actually done something was Mr. Romney but you and your NeoCon friends would have none of it… right?
I remember Anne Coulter being so upset with McCain as the choice that she promised to vote or Obama but like all dumb Republican blonds. she really did not know her head from the other end… eh?
D.J. – you guys have no answers.
You just want to do what your ideology claims will work but never has…
Would you sign up for Mr. Romney? I would.
does that still make me “center-left”?
I’d cut Medicare …you only get back what you paid into it unless you have exhausted your assets… would you sign on to that?
I’d raise SS to age 70, how about you?
Do these sounds like center-left ideas?
Mitt Romney, the fellow who brought Obamacare to Massachusetts? I’ll pass.
If you had actually paid attention to my blog before a week ago, you’d have noticed I repeatedly opposed TARP.
And yes, Obama did make it worse. The FY09 budget was *his* budget (Congress refused to pass one when Bush was in office), and Bush was nowhere to be found for the FY10 budget.
I like raising the SS limit. Of course, so does John Boehner, one of those people who supposedly has “no answers” and “just want to do what your ideology claims.”
Fact is, you really don’t know me very well, or you would known that I backed McCain in the primaries (because of his willingness to cut spending) no matter what Ann Coulter said.
Instead, you see the R next to my name and let your prejudices do the rest.
That’s a you problem, Larry.
Touche!
Fact is, you really don’t know me very well, or you would known that I backed ROMNEY in the primaries (because of his willingness to ACTUALLY cut spending (as opposed to lie about it)) no matter what Ann Coulter said.
Instead, you see the (L)iberal next to my name and let your prejudices do the rest.
That’s a you problem, D.J.
agreed?
Touche pour vous, M. Gross!
I would note that *my* assumptions were based on your words (i.e., referring to Bush backers as “IDIOT-LOVERS”) while from what I can gather your assumptions were merely based on my party label. Still, we both had misperceptions of each other that the blogosphere has helped to correct (I hope).
AHEM…going back to the topic at hand: you’re not going to ‘win’ in Afghanistan without a definition of the word ‘win’ that is achievable as well as the correct moral attitude to war. As well as money. WE ARE OUT OF MONEY, so we’re not going to do this. Doesn’t matter if you find ‘replacement’ funds; that is spending that just needs to be cut, not shifted.
Winning: should have been defined as simply slaughtering the Taliban & AQ. We would have left in mid-2002 and fired some predator missiles. Instead we stayed and tried to teach these savages democracy and other nation-building junk while sinking mountains of cash into it. Total failure. Required reading: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Nation+building+doesn+work/3244121/story.html
Moral attitude: we must recognize that the US government only has a moral responsibility to protect its citizens rights. Minimizing civilian casualties in war is NOT one of these responsibilities. The moral burden of dead civilians is borne by the aggressor ie AQ&Taliban. It was with this proper moral attitude that America won both the civil war, where Sherman burned much of the south, and WW2, where many enemy civilians were intentionally killed and rightly so. Instead, neocons like you have told us that we have to ‘win hearts and minds’ to facilitate the stupid neocon quest to impart the democracy elixir on Afghanistan. 10 years later (!) it turns out that those hearts and minds are worthless. It doesn’t matter that those people hate AQ and the Taliban; they will still bow before them.
Last point: bringing the drug war to Afghanistan was monumentally stupid. We are handing our enemies buckets of cash and alienating the populace when we could just legalize opium.
America lacks the moral equipment and money to further prosecute this war. I see no change from McChrystal’s ‘Hugs not Drugs!’ strategy. It would be for the best if US forces launched some blitz, killed a bunch of the enemy, declared victory, and went home. The worst that can happen is that the Taliban take over Afghanistan and allow AQ to operate there again. If so, the US can just re-invade. Maybe they’ll do it right this time.
Cyto,
“Winning: should have been defined as simply slaughtering the Taliban & AQ” – so far, so good.
“The worst that can happen is that the Taliban take over Afghanistan and allow AQ to operate there again” – um, so you’re OK with us losing. Got it. You’ll forgive me it I’m not.
Well, you’ve lost anyway, The Taliban came right back anyway.
[...] the Afghan people (government and anti-Taliban political opposition) – the same Taliban that welcomed, embraced, and all-but-merged with al Qaeda prior to [...]
[...] the Afghan people (government and anti-Taliban political opposition) – the same Taliban that welcomed, embraced, and all-but-merged with al Qaeda prior to [...]