Afghanistan Is Not 'Obama's War' (Republicans should never do to Obama what Dems...)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 9/3/09 | DAN SENOR AND PETER WEHNER

[nickcarraway]

Republicans should never do to President Obama what many Democrats did to President Bush.

In his column for the Washington Post on Tuesday, the influential conservative George Will provided intellectual fodder for the campaign among some Republicans to hang the Afghanistan war around the Obama administration's neck. Washington, he wrote, should "keep faith" with our fighting men and women by "rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan." "Obama's war," a locution one is now beginning to hear from other conservatives, is an expression of discontent that has been smoldering beneath the surface for several months.

The weakening public support for continuing the counterinsurgency campaign is not surprising. In the midst of an economic crisis people are tempted to draw inward. Add to that a general war weariness in the U.S. and the fact that the Afghanistan war is not going well right now—violence in Afghanistan is already far worse this year than last—and you have the makings of an unpopular conflict.

But the case of conservative opposition to the war in Afghanistan—as well as increasingly in Iraq—is symptomatic of something larger: the long history of political parties out of power advancing a neo-isolationist outlook. For example, Democrats were vocal opponents of President Reagan's support for the Nicaraguan contras and the democratic government in El Salvador, the U.S. invasion of Grenada, the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe, and the forceful stand against the Soviet Union generally.

[Tribune7]

I hope Obama succeeds in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, I think 0 is a complete screw-up.

[2banana]

Hang the war around his neck like a cement block. Obama’s policies are losing the war. Just like LBJ.

[pissant]

Myabe not, but he is doing his damndest to f*** it up.

[Sioux-san]

Obama has long said that we have been fighting the wrong war...that Afghanistan is where we should have been concentrating, not Iraq. YOu cannot fight a war and nation-build at the same time — First you must defeat the Enemy unequivocally, which we didn’t do in Iraq and we aren’t going to do in Afghanistan. I guess those kind of fighting days are long over.

[kik5150]

Then Vietnam was Kennedy’s war?
Problem is, Obama promised an immediate pull-out if he got elected.
Looks like his chickens are coming home to roost.

[mad_as_he$$]

Oh F’off WSJ. We are not playing nice, nice anymore.

[JohnQ1]

The WSJ is right: Obama’s war is with the US. But he is getting a bunch of Americans killed in Afghanistan.

[SoldierDad]

Afghanistan is NOT Obama’s war. It is America’s war. However, it is now Obama’s responsibility to do everything possible to win the fight in Afghanistan or take the blame if it goes south. Personally, I have zero confidence this Islamic peace-nik and appeaser will do what is necessary to win. After watching him bow down to the Saudi King I know he’s not interested in the national interests of the country he is suppose to be the leader of.

[Parley Baer]

“influential conservative George Will’

Bwahahahahahahaha. Just to funny.

[petertare]

Separate from the hideous ROE now inplace in Afghan, and separate from the fact we have a Kenyan communist as CinC, we must not, and cannot ever ever abandon our troops.

Yes we are probably Mirandizing detained troublemakers in this overseas contingency operation, yet we must not cede our respect and necessary support for our kids—our troops doing the best possible effort—on our request and behalf.

The Kenyan is completely nuts, as anti-American and anti-American values as any evil doer in our, maybe the planets history—but do not let down, do not turn from the greatest of us—those that step forward to defend our citizenry in such difficult places, in the lonely outposts, and serving now, through our stupidity, under a turncoat Kenyan President who will betray them at the first political opportunity.

Stand with them. Stand with America.

[LibLieSlayer]

I want to win in Afghanistan... hussein wants to play nicey nice with the taliban... his brethren..

LLS

[LS]

It depends on what his definition of success is. He has already said he doesn’t believe in “victory.” So, what exactly is his idea of “succeeding?” If it is to destroy AQ and the Taliban, I’m all for it. But if it’s to diddle around Vietnam style, picking targets from Washington, bring the troops home until we get a real Commander in Chief.

[Pessimist]

I know this will be unpopular, but here goes anyway...

Nation building is nation building... period.

I'm open to alternative reasons, but please avoid platitudes. I've already heard plenty of “Get Osama” (who is either dead or in Pakistan) etc.

There's nothing conservative about indiscriminate war.

[Loyal Buckeye]

During the campaign Obama & Biden had all the answers about Afghanistan. Now, all they can do is point fingers.

[Tribune7]

It depends on what his definition of success is. If it is to destroy AQ and the Taliban, I’m all for it. But if it’s to diddle around Vietnam style, picking targets from Washington, bring the troops home until we get a real Commander in Chief.

Well said and a good point.

[swatbuznik]

Obama be damned, I hope the troops succeed.

[RichInOC]

The expression, “You break it, you own it,” comes to mind.

[Cicero]

We can sure as hell be critical of Obama without undermining our troops, which was the intention of the left in Iraq, as in Vietnam.

For instance, I am very disturbed by Obama’s new rules of engagement, which basically don’t allow our troops to fire back when they are being shot at, for fear of being prosecuted for killing civilians.

Obama is putting our troops in the line of fire but not allowing them to defend themselves. I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. Nor do I think it’s wrong to point out that Obama promised to “win” the war in Afghanistan. Yet as far as I can see, he is following LBJ’s policy of NOT trying to win.

I certainly don’t support fighting a war with our troops handicapped with crippling rules of engagement and which we apparently have no intention of winning.

In fact, it’s far from clear which side Obama is on.

[nathanbedford]

The war in Afghanistan is a crucial part of America's broader struggle against militant Islam. If we were to fail in Afghanistan, it would have calamitous consequences for both Pakistan and American credibility. It would consign the people of Afghanistan to misery and hopelessness. And Afghanistan would once again become home to a lethal mix of terrorists and insurgents and a launching point for attacks against Western and U.S. interests. Neighboring governments—especially Pakistan's with its nuclear weapons—could quickly be destabilized and collapse.

Progress and eventual success in Afghanistan—which is difficult but doable—would, when combined with a similar outcome in Iraq, constitute a devastating blow against jihadists and help stabilize a vital and volatile region.

I think these writers have it exactly backwards for the reasons I expressed in this reply:

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and we cannot kill all of them. The way to deal with any Islamic (Islamicist) movement is to enlist the sane Muzzies to liquidate the insane Muzzies because we have convinced them that if they do not police the crazies in their own religion either we will kill them or the Islamists will. Even if we could kill them all, the mothers of America will never tolerate the kind of casualties required to do so unless you want to go nuclear in which case we in America will not be able to tolerate ourselves..

It’s time to get down to the business of thinking about America's strategic interests. What do we want to accomplish in Afghanistan? Obviously, we want to leave a country in place which does not support terrorism. That would be nice, but does it make us any safer? No. Because, so long as Waziristan provides a sanctuary for terrorism, it doesn't matter whether the terrorists also have Afghanistan. The problem compounds, if you want to leave Afghanistan a place which is not safe for terrorists you must also convert northwestern Pakistan into a place which is not safe for terrorists. If one of these places is not permanently "pacified" the other will equally not be pacified.

How do we propose to do that, with American boots on the ground? With 50% of America against the war in Afghanistan, what percentage of America do you judge will support putting troops into Pakistan? Assuming you can get public support for putting troops into Pakistan, can you be sure that the Pakistani government will not oppose our troops? Can you be sure that the Pakistani government will not threaten to use nuclear weapons against our troops? Even if such a threat were hollow when made, can we afford to disregard it? Can you see an end game to the pacification of Waziristan? I cannot. Neither could Winston Churchill more than a century ago.

Could it be done with drones and conventional air power working in close alliance with the Pakistani government and with some tribes in Waziristan? I do not know. As in every war America fights, we are in a foot race between our own casualty count and the enemy. Some might argue that the Serbs were pacified by air power alone, but is Afghanistan the same as Yugoslavia? Does not history teach us that "pacification" unavoidably means occupation? Have we figured out how to do that in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan without unacceptable casualty counts?

If casualty counts are not problematic enough, do we have the money? How broke are we? Is the debt growing to 11 trillion? Will the entitlements inexorably carry us to $26 million, as recently reported? It has now become a real question whether we can finance such a war.

While we are exercising our vision about how to pacify Waziristan, can we be sure that our efforts will not radicalize the reasonably sane portion of the Muslim population of Pakistan further against America? Will it turn the military against us? The Secret Police? What about those people who control the nukes? How much would take for people like A. Q. Khan who sold nuclear secrets to turn over some nukes to the Taliban or other terrorists in retaliation?

Would an American invasion with ground forces into the Northwest of Pakistan make that more or less likely? How do you know? But can we conduct our foreign policy out of fear or should we simply pursue our own best interests and let the chips fall where they may? According to Michael Scheuer, ex-of the CIA and responsible for watching bin Laden, we are not acting and have not been acting in pursuit of our own interests for years. He says that's why we are fighting these wars in the first

So we come back to my initial premise which is we must enlist the sane Muzzies to fight our war for us. We cannot win it alone. The way we enlist support from Muzzies is to show them who is boss. They respect power and they despise appeasement.

But let us not deceive ourselves. It required only 19 Muzzies to bring down the World Trade Center and kill 3000 Americans. We can kill all the Muzzies in Afghanistan, and they will still be able to scrape up from somewhere among the godforsaken corners of the world another 19 Muzzies to deliver what this time might be a weapon of mass destruction. And that weapon might just come from Pakistan. We cannot hope to conquer and hold every square inch of territory between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the western border of China in order to stop the formation of a terrorist squad only nineteen men (or women) strong.

So the war is primarily a war of intelligence. After we wring all the benefits we can out of our listening devices, we need indispensable local knowledge. Human intelligence must primarily come from the Muslim world because they have the language, the culture, and the tribal affiliation which we could never hope to penetrate. But we can hope to suborn them, turn one tribe against another, as the French did in North America and the British did so successfully in India and Pakistan. But conquering and holding territory is not the answer; it is probably not even the means to the answer.

A war of intelligence is primarily a war of alliances.

So when we do our strategic thinking about what the interests of America are in places like Afghanistan, we ought to consider what our goals are there and how we can accomplish them. Putting boots on the turf and holding it as an end in itself is worse than useless, I fear it is self-defeating.

Putting boots on the ground and fighting only to a stalemate is the equivalent of defeat because unnerves our allies, encourages our enemies, and dispirits our grieving mothers. Rather than intimidating Muslim governments to cooperate with us, it encourages them to pander to their street. Intelligence suffers. When intelligence suffers it actually makes us more vulnerable, not less.

Whatever we do, must be done decisively and successfully or not at all.

Until we're able to answer fundamental questions and articulate exactly what troops there can accomplish and at what cost, we are just spending blood and treasure without purpose.