[nathanbedford]

I assume you're referring mostly to Glenn Beck about whom I have posted on this issue at length. My beef against Beck is that he might not be a reliable conservative and he is certainly not a reliable Republican. My views on this subject were published before before he made his remark that voting for McCain would be worse for the country than voting for Obama.

I called this a preposterous remark and debated it at length. In essence, I applaud Glenn Beck for his wonderful muckraking and his talent for dramatizing the issues. More, Glenn Beck has a talent for explaining these matters thematically which is an overview lacking even in the presentations made by Rush Limbaugh. Beck goes to the blackboard and shows the interrelationships of corruption in the Obama administration, for example. But his remark quoted above betrays an utter ignorance of the American two-party system and a naïveté (or a megalomania) which I think is close to what you're talking about.

The Libertarians on the right are similar to the leftists who are locked in their psychic cage to the degree that the Libertarians permit the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The leftist exploits relativism to destroy all values which leads to nihilism so he can destroy the system. The Libertarian says your ways are imperfect therefore I withdraw entirely from the game. Glenn Beck, for example, explicitly tells his viewers not to vote for either Republicans or Democrats. He clearly wants a third-party movement to emerge. The problem with a libertarian approach is that it encourages frustrated conservatives to withdraw from the fray and go into their bunker with their bottled water and their gun collection-a kind of nihilism after all.

The matter becomes more complicated when we get into the area of your expertise, military engagements abroad. The complication is that is difficult to distinguish libertarianism from paleo- conservatism. Libertarians actually have an argument to make but they extend the implications of their philosophy absurdly and leave the country vulnerable and weak. In this effect, if not in the intent, Libertarians resemble leftists who would leave the country weak and vulnerable so they can destroy our system.

I confess to playing Hamlet on these issues myself and you and I have had long exchanges on the issue of Iraq. I think you were right and I was wrong, and I have said so. One would think I would have learned my lesson but I find myself mounting the same arguments against our involvement in Afghanistan. I am ambivalent because I do not see a war aim nor a strategy. Mostly, I do not see the utility of "winning" in Afghanistan if we cannot "win" in Waziristan at a price we can or should be willing to pay.

I like to think that in these struggles to find a proper course in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan that I am acting in the long American tradition of paleo conservatism. The danger of course is that we say we are looking to pick our shots but we are actually seeking to avoid the fray. I honestly do not believe I am doing that.

Domestically, the history of the United States demonstrates clearly that a third-party movement only ensures the victory of the party most alien to the goals of the movement. There is no conservative success outside of the Republican Party. The modern national electoral contest is so expensive and so vast that the apparatus of the party is indispensable for coordination, discipline, coherence of message, and fundraising. The Internet can not substitute for these purposes but the Obama campaign demonstrated that the Internet can be used as an arm of a party apparatus. Therefore, conservatives must reform the Republican Party but not abandon it. The Internet can be used to reform the Republican Party but it cannot be a substitute for a party apparatus.

In a way, it is the technological application of the difference between Rousseau and locke.

I am sorry for the rambling reply, but your comments have touched a sore spot with me. If the Glenn Beck's of the world have their way the Republican Party is liable to be fractured, not reformed, and the country will never be released from its psychic cage.

[MNJohnnie]

You give me much to think about as alway.. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

[MNJohnnie]

On Afghanistan.

There are no good answers here.

Part of the reason we went to Iraq was to avoid having to fight this battle in this location. We wanted to draw them out into more favorable terrain. It worked for a while but unfortunately once the terrorists realized they were losing in Iraq, they pulled back to fight in Afghanistan. Now what do we do?

Afghanistan is known as the “graveyard of empires” for a reason. It is hard to get too. You have long vulnerable supply lines, it borders are almost indefensible, it's neighbors provide safe havens to the terrorists. It terrain and demographic and ethnic diversity favors the enemy efforts.

So what do we do?

Part of me thinks we should stop spending blood and treasure on this. Declare victory and come home.

We have a strategic interest in maintaining a position in Iraq. Iraq is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. Being in Iraq gives us an unassailable position to counter any belligerence from Syria, Iran or, who knows the future, Saudi Arabia. There is no such reason to stay in Afghanistan. It is a dead end theater that gains us little and costs us much. If we can maintain a presence in Uzbekistan where we can keep an eye on Afghanistan and swat any resurgent Al Qeda presence with massive air strikes and provide aid to those forces opposed to the militants we can achieve our national security interests without the drain this perpetual mission of trying to “national building” is causing on our troops, on our allies and on our treasury.

We have done a lot of good since 2001. To start with we are paying attention now. No one was paying any attention to Afghanistan after 1989. Soviets pulled out, we won, game over. We went to sleep again.

Part of the reason the Taliban were successful in the 1st place was because the Pakis were giving them aid so that they could bleed off their militant into Afghanistan.

Now Taliban and Pakis are at open war. Future regimes in Islamabad are going to know they cannot use an unstable Afghanistan as their militant dumping ground. We will be watching. And since we will be watching we can give money and support any native Afghanistan forces if they seem to be losing to a resurgent Taliban.

Downsides? We embolden all our foes from Iran to NK to the Terrorists and serious damage US credibility with our allies. Being able to claim victory in Afghanistan is going to help the terrorists raise fund and recruit troops. Plus we are going to have to stand guard for decades watching what is going on in Afghanistan which means maintaining a presence some where in the country or in the area to fly drones and support covert ops. US Govt after US Government is going to have to support that effort meaning both sides of the political spectrum will have to buy into that effort. Cannot have this administration do it, then have the next one drop the ball. This is an effort that will require decades of slow patient effort on our part.

Like I said at 1st, no good answer. But from everything I am hearing the situation in Afghanistan is seriously deteriorating and nothing the current Admin is doing right now is going to change that.