Democrats Never Meant What They Said About Afghanistan

NRO ^ | SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 | Jim Geraghty

[RobinMasters]

An astonishingly honest assessment — one that I fear is accurate — from the lefty blog Hullabaloo:

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."

The average Democrat doesn't like fighting wars. They don't like using military force. They don't just dislike collateral damage and civilian casualties and flag-draped coffins; they cringe at the concept of combat with citizens of another country, even when the president has declared:

Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

[Billthedrill]

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

None of us missed the point, although the notion of saying anything to get into office and then doing anything else is just a little blatant when it's expressed like that. It's the sort of thing that inevitably gets brought up when it comes time for re-election.

The far greater offense is not having an alternate policy in mind while you're lying your sorry butt off to get elected. "Just pull out" isn't a policy, it's a vague idea, and aside from an unelectable idea it's a bad one for everyone else other than the candidate and his followers. The truth is that what happened was more like "just lie and then we'll figure it out." Well, figuring it out is turning out to be just a little harder than it seemed during those dorm room discussions.

Nor is Afghanistan simply a static, nor an isolated problem, it's an issue the Russians are merrily feeding (Iran is another) in pursuit of their own geostrategic objectives, namely the reassembly of the Former Soviet Union. The latter is a program of which 0bama and his progressive wing are broadly in favor as long as they don't have to take the blame. That's going to be a little hard to avoid come time for re-election as well. It is, after all, the price of majority.

I am not optimistic. I do not think 0bama or his staff are up to the job and I do not say that for partisan reasons but as a conclusion based on results to date. They are going to attempt to paper the problem over this week at the UN confab on the 24th, and the complaisant media will be working overtime to present the whole thing as another Munich done right this time. "Peace In Our Time and now let's concentrate on Global Warming." Watch it happen.

[darkside321]

No, they were just harmless little enclaves of playful people just pretending to be building more and more anti-US sentiment.

Saddam would have just backed down and let the inspectors in eventually and the Taliban in place in Afganistan would have just said, “Oh, 9/11 was just a one-time deal..we won’t do it again.” Right?

---

sorry but afghanistan did not attack the US on 9/11 nor did Iraq. a terrorist organisation (not a government) did this.
i guarantee you that 80% of the people living in afghanistan didn´t even know that a country like the USA only exists bevore the “war”. nor did they want to attack you. by “our” definition they are all total religious lunatics. and i agree. but believe me the standart afghani could care less about the US if Nato wasn´t there. they want to live like in the 6th century? Ok fine for me i don´t care. just tell em “we” let you as long as you don´t harbour people who want to kill us all (terrorists). if you do face the consequences. (bomb the crap out of them and don´t care about local casualties). but as long “we” try to start nation building in a region where people would rater die before they would want to live in a democracy like ours we have allready lost.

[what's up]

you that 80% of the people living in afghanistan didn´t even know that a country like the USA only exists bevore the “war

So what? You didn't know that Al Queda had large numbers of havens there protected by its Gov't? The leaders of the Taliban there sure know the US exists and the people would allow those anti-US reptiles to run things if we were not there. And then terror breeds. We don't wait for attacks after we already had one that could very well have destroyed us had we not had a George Bush in office ...we go over and do what we need to BEFORE something else happens. And it will if we leave them alone because the Taliban have nothing else that motivates them other than hatred of the US.

nor did Iraq

So what? Saddam couldn't keep going on the way he had been for years. It was time to stop before the world (especially us) suffered. You can't let sick dictators who are a threat continue on otherwise you are like Chamberlain.

[angkor]

>>>> Personally, I have believed we should of made a glass parking lot out of the entire muslum world after 9-11 <<<<

Something like that.

[fluffdaddy]

“Afghanistan did not attack the US on 9/11 nor did Iraq. a terrorist organization (not a government) did this.”

Nonsense. The Muslim world attacked us on 9/11 and hundreds of millions of Muslims celebrated. They believed they could escape any reprisals because we would blame a few radicals; and you want to prove them right. Way to go.

Islam produces terrorists because the Islamic world demands terrorism as a salve to its inferiority complex and a weapon against its enemies (us.) Our job is to make it very clear to Muslims, especially those in Persia and Arabia, that attacking us is a fool's game. We have to prove that they will pay dearly in lives and humiliation for any damage they inflict on us and that we won't be distracted by scapegoats like Al Qaeda. We have to suppress the demand for terrorism; we can't just try to pinch the supply.

Any Muslim regime that sets itself up as our enemy has to go. The Taliban and Saddam were a start, but only a start. We should be waging the Arab and Persian War much more vigorously than we are, but we certainly shouldn't be retreating or giving up any ground we've won.

Sadly, it will probably take another successful attack to make all this clear to the obtuse American public.

[darkside321]

So what? You didn’t know that Al Queda had large numbers of havens there protected by its Gov’t? The leaders of the Taliban there sure know the US exists and the people would allow those anti-US reptiles to run things if we were not there. And then terror breeds. We don’t wait for attacks after we already had one that could very well have destroyed us had we not had a George Bush in office ...we go over and do what we need to BEFORE something else happens. And it will if we leave them alone because the Taliban have nothing else that motivates them other than hatred of the US.

nor did Iraq

So what? Saddam couldn’t keep going on the way he had been for years. It was time to stop before the world (especially us) suffered. You can’t let sick dictators who are a threat continue on otherwise you are like Chamberlain.

---

just for example Afghanistan is not something you could call a country (by our definitions) it´s a land mass populated by many tribes (most of them of top lunatic islamic faith of course). the taliban shure hate all of what “western” society stands for. this is a given fact. but the question is would they sacrifice their way of live (because we can kill them all) only because they have heard of foreign countries who are not devoted to the rule of islam? i guess not. that´s why i say let em face the consequences. Let them alone as long as they don´t want to force their sick believes on us (by harboring terrorists). if they do show em that we will kill all of them just because of that. this would be the message to this lunatics. live your live but don´t dare to interfere in “our” lives. if you do we will kill you all. the propblem is “we” interfere the same way in their live with our “wonderfull” nation building. i mean come on. leave them alone and if they dare to protest use maximum force to show em the result. i really guess this would be the right solution.

[what's up]

Let them alone as long as they don´t want to force their sick believes on us (by harboring terrorists).

There's no "as long as". Period. The Taliban WILL get back in power and increased terror activity IS inevitable because their hearts can't change overnight with some kind of benevolence you seem to think might be there.

You say IF they harbor terrorists they should get slammed. And how do we keep track of this activity when our presence is no longer there. Depend on Russia to move in and tell us (and they will increase their presence if we move out). We wait for the inevitable attack? NO. We do not wait for our people to get attacked; we continue to take the correct action now and don't retreat.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy...

And so we have an inexperienced, community organizer, socialist Commander in Chief because McCain ran a pathetic campaign and the media was in the tank for the Kenyan.

[darkside321]

Nonsense. The Muslim world attacked us on 9/11 and hundreds of millions of Muslims celebrated. They believed they could escape any reprisals because we would blame a few radicals; and you want to prove them right. Way to go...

---

you got me wrong. i´m all for showing the real “message”. attack us and then “you” will have to face to consequences. and “we” should show em the result. We should have carped bombed most of afghanistan burned down every single poppy field just as revenge. or better said just to show this people what it means if you harbour terrorists. but we should also show them that we are willing to leave them alone as long as they don´t threat us. this is why i said use maximum force (and don´t care about civillian casulties) so they will get the message. maybe then they will learn that they will have the choice to live like they want in their own hell holes (countries) as long as they don´t dare to interfere in our lives. and as long they don´t do this we will not retaliate. but if “they” dare show em the result.

[darkside321]

There’s no “as long as”. Period. The Taliban WILL get back in power and increased terror activity IS inevitable because their hearts can’t change overnight with some kind of benevolence you seem to think might be there.

You say IF they harbor terrorists they should get slammed. And how do we keep track of this activity when our presence is no longer there. Depend on Russia to move in and tell us (and they will increase their presence if we move out). We wait for the inevitable attack? NO. We do not wait for our people to get attacked; we continue to take the correct action now and don’t retreat.

---

shure the taliban will get back into power if we leave. (this will not change if we leave now or in 10 years) it´s the mentality of this “country” they do not believe in democracy. they believe in treating woman like cattle for example.nothing will change that. btw. you really think that troops in afghanistan would hinder a major terrorist attack? believe me they won´t. there are so many countries out there where terrorists can settle that afghanistan really doesn´t make the difference. they just move on to the next lawless hellhole. and this is why i do think this way. show every dictator or every citizen in this world that “we” won´t intervene what ever you do as long as you don´t do “this”. but if you dare we will kill you using all we have. i really guess this would be the right message

[kalee]

Democracy will last there just long enpugh to vote the theocratic Taliban back into power.

[what's up]

you really think that troops in afghanistan would hinder a major terrorist attack?

Of course it likely hinders Al Queda from plotting terror attacks in Afganistan. When they are on defense they are that much more unable to regroup and think of strategies for their own offensives.

Military Strategy 101.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I would of took out the Palestinians(3.5mil) Iraq (28mil) and Iran (65mil) the first day after 9-11 and then demanded the complete and unconditional surrender of the rest of the Muslim world within 24 hours or the bombing would continue.

Then after accepting their surrender I would of demanded that they sell all their oil for $20 a barrel for the next 50 years to the United States.

[the OlLine Rebel]

IOW: you can’t trust Moslems.

Bingo.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“stabilize without escalation”

Sort of like “increase medical care/coverage without taxation”.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“It is either their civilians or ours, it is THAT simple.”

Oh, bravo!

You are 1 of the few who recognizes the basic question.

Which leads to the truly most pointed question:

Who is better? (Thus, worth saving most?)

In our PC world, we can’t ask that question nor certainly answer it.