On 9/11, Arab Islamofascist terrorists murdered 3000 people in New York. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk were given protection by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
President George W. Bush gave his world famous speech 9 days later where he promised to go after all those who were terrorists, and those who harbored or funded them. There was no distinction.
One of those terrorists was Iraqi madman Saddam Hussein. While not directly related to 9/11, he was a worldwide sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force.
In October of 2001, the United States waged war in Afghanistan. In March of 2003 the fight was taken to Iraq. In both cases Democrats voted for resolutions authorizing war, after taking many polls and conducting many focus groups. Democratic presidential candidates were particularly troubled by how to be for and against the war so that either outcome would help them at the polls. Democrats also had to figure out how to support the troops while undermining President Bush, a delicate balancing act.
In both cases, initial military success came easy. In both cases, the longer sustainable efforts post-war were difficult. Since the Taliban did attack us on 9/11, it was much tougher to be against that war. Even some liberals totally against the Iraq War supported the war effort in Afghanistan.
It is through this prism that Iraq was the “bad war” and Afghanistan was the “good war.”
When sectarian violence broke out in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, Democrats still burning with rage (over the 2000 and 2004 elections, not the loss of human life) found a way to hammer President Bush. He was “focusing on Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan.”
This was the narrative. If Democrats were given control, we would be out of Iraq, and going all out to win militarily in Afghanistan.
The Demagogic Party presidential candidates from Hillary “Sniper Fire” Clinton to Barack Obama to John (where do the jokes begin?) Edwards to Christopher “Friend of Angelo” Dodd all stated that they would go all out to win in Afghanistan. Despite bragging that they would “stand up to Bill O’Reilly” (who did not murder anyone), the whole purpose of ending the conflict in Iraq was to focus more on Afghanistan.
I looked at these lilliputians and knew that they were lying through their liberal teeth. If Iraq had never existed, they would want us out of Afghanistan just as quickly.
Sure, things were trickier with a liberal president. The Jayson Blair Times could no longer run front page stories about body counts. No criticism of either war was to be printed unless it could in some way be tied, even tangentially, to President Bush.
Yet give the anti-war lunatics credit. They may be bat spit crazy, but at least they are consistently crazy. They wanted out of all war forever.
Not everybody has been completely irresponsible. Mr. Obama, after much dithering and consulting with political strategists, gave his general 75% of the requested troops. It was more than the 0% the Code Pinkos wanted.
Yet the liberals in congress were as disgusting as ever, led by the Pelosiraptor and Harry Reid. Votes to cut off funding received over one hundred votes from the left. So they supported the Good War in their hearts. They just refused to fund it. They are still trying to defund that war today.
In 2004 the left was willing to lose a war to try and win an election. In 2010 they are just as vile.
There are no more excuses. Withdrawal from Iraq, while totally misguided, will be happening. The bad war they hated is no longer an issue for them. They are leaving. If all the good work President George W. Bush and General David Petraues did is undone, they will blame President Bush anyway.
The Good War needs to be won. Congressional liberals and other violent (anti-war people are as violent as it gets) peace activists are fully prepared to lose.
In liberal land, Afghanistan never was the good war. It was just the good political issue.
America won Vietnam on the battlefield and lost it in the liberal media and congress. The left is fully prepared to repeat this folly in Afghanistan, since that is what they wanted all along.
Somewhere in a land where Democrats actually cared, FDR, Harry Truman and JFK must be weeping. JFK said we would “pay any price and bear any burden” for victory.
Until we get attacked again on American soil (God forbid) while a liberal Democrat is president, there will be no effort to win that conflict. If Americans will rally around the flag and a Republican president, that price is too high and that burden is to great for liberals to bear.
eric
They had a really nice memorial service for one of the MPRI contractors here yesterday. He was a weapons instructor who worked alongside fellow military instructors. During one of the training sessions two weeks ago, he and another military NCO were teaching weapons qualification with the M4, and an Afghan they were training shot both him and the NCO – killing them instantly. So, fortunately one of the other US Soldiers killed the Afghan before he could do further damage. I mentioned the memorial service to a cousin, former military man, who expressed surprise that he hadn’t heard anything about it on the news. I know of three similar incidents in the past few months, and I’m not sure you heard about the attack on the KAIA airport in Kabul three months ago. Seems the media fodder that so outraged the American public in Iraq a few years ago doesn’t play well with the current administration. Does anyone remember the outrage when when Iraqis we were training turned on US Soldiers? One incident was grounds to get out now…and it happens quite frequently here…how does that line go?…and the band played on…
America “won Vietnam?” Look, just murdering millions of people doesn’t make you a victor. It makes you a mass-murderer, yes, but not necessarily a victor. The Vietnamese war was always a lost cause. The Pentagon Papers proved we knew that for years. They were simply never going to give up, no matter how many millions of Vietnamese the blood-thirty hawks will willing to murder.
But for conservatives, history is just some fiction you make up as you go along. Saddam Hussein’s was less a purveyer of terror than just about any regime in the region. To still be using that excuse – that blatant, almost comical lie – reallly just proves how utterly incapable conservatives are to ever admit they can ever possibly be wrong about anything.
We have a serious problem in Afghanistan and the previous administration may very well have already lost that war before Obama was ever even sworn in. Just the same, the prior binch may never have had a chance either. Afghanistan is a very different place from Iraq. There may be no way to “win the hearts and minds” of the Afghan people in any functionally useful way. They just don’t have, and never have had, the physical and instutional infrastructure to work with in the first place. It is rich in resources, but without real security and a functional infrastructure, those resources are unattainable for all intents and purposes. War is always about much more than just killing people on the battlefield, something that goes right on over the heads of most conservatives. The political, cultural and social conditions on the ground are just as important as the nature of the opposing armies. The military has ben just as successful in Afghanistan as anywhere else – Iraq or Vietnam – but all that success could very well be for naught, as the rest of the conditions in Afghanistan are simply put “all sorts ‘a wrong.”
JMJ
Jersey, We again agree on a couple points – one that Iraq has an infrastructure from which to work; Afghans don’t. Two, that without securit, resources are unattainable (unless we allow the Chinese or other entity to take advantage). Granted, “There may be no way to “win the hearts and minds” of the Afghan people in any functionally useful way. They just don’t have, and never have had, the physical and instutional infrastructure to work with in the first place. It is rich in resources, but without real security and a functional infrastructure, those resources are unattainable for all intents and purposes. War is always about much more than just killing people on the battlefield, something that goes right on over the heads of most conservatives. The political, cultural and social conditions on the ground are just as important as the nature of the opposing armies.” But, to put the onus on Conservatives to say they don’t understand is 180 from what the conservative military policy is…
I don’t know, Eagle. Conservatives seem to believe that if you just bomb or occupy or kill enough, you can “win” any war. I think perhaps I could have stressed civilian, non-military conservatives, as I believe that most conservatives who have served in war probably know this lesson well.
I am currently reading Le Glay, Voison and Le Bohec’s “A History of Rome.” Great read. Much of this telling regards the geo-political military aspects of Roman history. One thing that stands out so starkly for me, and reminds me of these issues today, is the way the Romans dealt with different hostile peoples. They weren’t always right, let along successful, but they sometimes, with the right leadership, were able to win wars, win peace, and know when to be smart and just leave certain people and places alone. It was not always the optimum choice, but often it was the only best choice. There were Germanic tribes, for example, north of the Danube that the Romans knew full well were going to be problems in the future, but they just couldn’t do anything about it at the time and so they were patient and dealt with the issues when the time was right. They did not “preemptively” invade that dangerous region and mire themselves there. Soon after, the Persians were making trouble and there was trouble to the north of Italy. Had the Romans mired themselves in Dalmatia (Yugoslavia), they would have been crushed on the other two fronts. They barely kept those fronts in the end anyway. There was talk of establishing new provinces in those areas north of the Danube, but it was decided that it simply wasn’t worth it – the ever-changing demographics, the lack of legions, the costs – it was decided to concentrate elsewhere, in more profitable and peacable areas, as well as areas that were greater threats, like east of Syria. Even though conquering the region may have accomplished some level of peace or protection, the overall cost-benefit analysis showed that it simply wasn’t worth it.
Peace via political means was often the best answer. In Gaul, it wasn’t so much the military that “conquered” the locals. It was trade, protection, investment. The locals simply realized they were better off under Rome. The same went for the south of Britain and in most of Iberia.
It just seems to me that conservatives are like carpenters – every problem is a nail that has to be hammered. I wish they would read more history.
JMJ
I cannot argue with any of the above logic except for my first response – whether it be civilian or otherwise, I really don’t believe Conservatives have a corner on the “invasion” market… granted, recent history may suggest that more liberals have voted against going to war in different places, so a loose argument could be made that conservatives are more hawkish, but concurrently, a loose argument can be made that hawkish actions serve as a deterrent. And, even if you don’t buy into that argument, there were certainly a huge number of liberals who voted to go to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with only a select few liberals who wouldn’t defend themselves or their country if the lion were at the gate… and maybe Truman was a closet conservative…haha.
Jersey, you really ought to hear yourself sometime. You’re a riot.
First you say;
“But for conservatives, history is just some fiction you make up as you go along.”
And then you contradict yourself and totally ignore history by saying ;
“Saddam Hussein’s was less a purveyer of terror than just about any regime in the region. ”
Dont make me give you a historical rundown on Saddams reign of terror for decades.
Here, even Bubba makes you sound foolish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs