Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch - With Friends Like These Version Posted by Michael Cohen

I really like Barack Obama. He's a great writer, a wonderful public speaker, a damn good politician and first rate intellect. So far, he seems to be a pretty excellent president. But perhaps my favorite thing about Barack Obama is his judgment. Like, for example, when he said these words in Chicago in October 2002:

I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

This early and cogent opposition to the Iraq War was the first thing that really appealed to me about Barack Obama and my belief that he would make for a fine, even great, president. What was most impressive about Obama's opposition to the war was that it ran against the prevailing tide of opinion both in political circles, but also journalistic circles. So for example, while Max Boot, Pete Wehner, the Washington Post editorial board, the WSJ editorial board, the New Republic, many of the folks at AEI and Brookings, not to mention a host of liberal hawks were saying that the Iraq war was the right thing to do and had to be fought, Barack Obama was saying the opposite: that the war was a mistake, that it shouldn't be fought and after it commenced that it should be ended. And of course, he was right.

This brings us to the current situation in Afghanistan - and the folks in non-governmental circles who are supportive of the current war effort. Over at abu muqawama, Andrew Exum notes with dismay that Newshour host Gwen Ifill said to him "Look, I understand you're not some fire-breathing hawk, but you're about the only person we can find in Washington to defend this war at the moment."

Uh oh!

Today, however, a few folks take up the challenge of defending the war. They have a usual suspects feel to them. For example, the Washington Post has a rather predictable (for them) editorial titled "The Right Response is Not a Retreat," which makes this assertion:

Given that the Taliban and al-Qaeda now also aim to overturn the government of nuclear-armed Pakistan, the risks of a U.S. withdrawal far exceed those of continuing to fight the war -- even were the result to be continued stalemate.

Oy! By the way, I "aim" to play shortstop for the Boston Red Sox.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial titled "The Afghanistan Panic," which says this:

The fight in Afghanistan is not about nation building or turning a tribal state into Westminster. The goal is to provide enough stability and Afghan support to prevent the country from once again becoming a sanctuary for terrorists who could attack the U.S. In short, this is a fight in our strategic interests. Leaving Afghanistan in its current state would be a defeat in the larger war on terror, which would encourage jihadists everywhere. President Obama may not want to spend any political capital on Afghanistan, but he has no choice.

And in perhaps the most alarming sign, the New York Times reports that the most dependable supporters of the Afghanistan War are now Republicans not named George Will:

National security hawks in the Republican Party — not Mr. Obama’s most natural support base — still back the president on Afghanistan.

It was the Republican National Committee, and not the Democrats, that was sounding more solidly behind the president on Afghanistan. After Mr. Will’s abdication on Tuesday, the Republican National Committee quickly sent out an e-mail message and posted a statement, “Stand Strong, Mr. President,” on its Web site to take issue with the conservative columnist. “We agree with President Obama that ‘we have to win’ in Afghanistan and make sure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and resources they need,” the committee chairman, Michael Steele, said in the statement. He urged Mr. Obama to “stand strong and speak out for why we are fighting there,” adding that Mr. Obama has said too little so far “about why the voices of defeat are wrong.”

Look, if Barack Obama is counting on Michael Steele as an ally on anything something is horribly, horribly amiss.

And while many liberal hawks supported the Iraq War, their chest-thumping for this conflict - and in particular the growing mission in Afghanistan - has been noticeably quiet. Instead, we have folks like Russ Feingold - one of a handful of Democratic Senators to oppose the Iraq War - now making similar passionate arguments against the US mission in Afghanistan.

Frankly, if anything should give Barack Obama pause it is this. Perhaps it is my imagination, but it sure seems that the people who were consistently wrong about the Iraq War are the ones making the strongest arguments for continuing the mission; while many of the people who were consistently right about the Iraq War are the ones warning of "unintended consequences" and even mission creep.

Now some will say that opponents of the Iraq War were right for the wrong reasons - and there is something to this. But they were still right.  And in the fall and spring of 2002/2003 it took both courage and foresight to come out against a war fought in the name of fighting terrorism nearly a year after September 11th.

Mr. President, if you are relying for support from the same discredited voices who got the Iraq War wrong that's a problem. I realize that a broken clock is correct twice a day, but perhaps significant weight should be given to those, like you, who saw the Iraq war for the misguided effort that it was.

Comments

[dom youngross]

So if the big sell for propping up Karzai is because Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is at risk, Pakistan should hand it over to joint US-Russian-Chinese superpower custodial supervision for 'safekeeping' -- and Pakistan should be made a protectorate of the UN to guard against Indian invasion.

We'll give them their toys back -- and allow Pakistan to resume self-determination -- when its safe to do so.

The supposedly righteous war of necessity now in Afghanistan is as Charles Krauthammer publicly pointed out -- a political tactic that allowed some (read: Obama) to disingenously oppose Bush's Iraq War but not come across as anti-war McGovern peaceniks, to be at the time both anti-war (read: Anti-Bush) but flag-waving hawkish (read: Self-Serving), which is to say neither fish nor fowl, by declaring that the real war was awaiting in Afghanistan while the off-mission Iraq debacle was in progress.

So continuing this specious and vacuous line of thinking, we should wrap up Obama's off-mission Afghanistan distraction immediately because the real righteous war of necessity against terrorism languishes and festers in Sudan. Or Yemen. Or ...

Or maybe the real righteous war against terrorism is actually in Pakistan. And we should team up with India to invade Pakistan...

Hey, maybe that specious line of thinking which now supports the war to temporarily suspend tribal squabbles in Afghanistan isn't so specious after all. If you follow that line of thinking all the way around the world, inevitably you come to the conclusion that the real righteous war of necessity against terrorism should be fought in the US -- peacefully, through the political process, to end a federal government bent on perpetual warfare/perpetual debt.

If you see something only once in a lifetime, it's unlikely that you spot the underlying pattern. But if you see the same thing over, and over, and over, forget about who you 'like' and dislike and quit being such a tool.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[acekard ds]

Hi,
Thank you very much for sharing great post.I enjoyed it a lot.I came to know about some new things.I also shared it with my friends.They appreciated it a lot.