Grover Norquist’s Call for Retreat from Afghanistan
High-profile Republican activist Grover Norquist recently bucked his party by supporting the Ground Zero mosque and now he’s picked another fight: the war in Afghanistan. He denies that he’s calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces and just says he’s calling for a “discussion” of it — which basically means he just doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to say that’s his position.
Norquist said that conservatives should take a look at the “vast expenditures of cash, the vast expenditures of other people lives, and the opportunity cost.” He says, “It seems to me that it has been more expensive than not. And it has made America weaker than otherwise.” He also mentioned how President Reagan “didn’t decide to fix Lebanon” but packed up and left after the bombing of the Marine barracks. But don’t get Norquist wrong, he insists. He isn’t calling for doing the same in Afghanistan, even though he’s making the case for it.
He is the Republican equivalent of those Democrats who tried to force President Bush into withdrawing from Iraq before the surge was even given a chance to succeed. Just as the surge is bringing about signs of progress in Afghanistan and 1,400 more Marines are being sent, Norquist wants to turn and run.
At a private meeting on January 19, General Petraeus reacted to the briefing given to him by saying, “We’ve got our teeth in the enemy’s jugular now, and we’re not going to let go.” When Petraeus talks like that, it means something. He is not a man known for using bravado and is measured and cautious in his assessments.
A recent poll shows that the Afghans who live where the surge is most focused are seeing improvements. Sixty-seven percent of those in Helmand province said their security is “good,” up from 14 percent in December 2009, and almost two-thirds say their country is headed in the right direction. The Afghan population remains quite pro-American. A poll in early 2010 found that 68 percent of Afghans view the U.S. military presence positively, almost as many support the surge, and a slight majority express a positive view of the U.S. The Taliban, on the other hand, is viewed by almost 70 percent of Afghans as their number one threat.
The U.S. military and the Afghan government are making progress in trying to replicate the Sons of Iraq. The governor of Kandahar has traveled to areas previously under Taliban control to hold meetings with 350 elders and General Petraeus is setting up “community watch[es] with AK-47s” in 68 districts. One of the largest Pashtun tribes allied with the Afghan government in January, and the largest tribe in the southern part of Helmand province, has done the same. Combat forces are now in the community instead of sheltered in large bases and are developing relationships on the grassroots level. Intercepted communications show the Taliban has low morale and some are defecting.
Here is how I see it Ryan. The surge had to be tried and we should let it finish. But there’s not much to ‘win’ in Afghanistan, in the short-term. It’s unlike Iraq in that sense. In Iraq, we pacified the place in 2007-08 and that has allowed it to begin to flourish. Afghanistan’s government is more corrupt, its polity more illiberal — everything about it is more backward. So we’re basically fighting to prevent a loss. Now that might be reason enough to stay there. We don’t want to go back to a pre-9/11 Afghanistan. The question is, can we do that in ways other than COIN? What do we do when the COIN strategy runs its course? I feel like we will likely have the same dilemma then as we do now: a unstable nuclear Pakistan that can assist radical elements back into power in Afghanistan. I think we can pound the terrorists from the sky for perpetuity, support decentralized government, indigenous security, and private sector building in Afghanistan, and take a more regional approach to include India in the equation — and we can keep the al Qaida types at bay long-term. What do you think?
I think the US should get its Pest Control Droids on line ASAP,
take out the current crop of terrorist Taliban targets, and
bring the troops home, leaving a rear guard of Droids to
cull the next crop as it appears.
Transport Droids can be used to trade with Tribal Khans, using
gold to buy opium, and the heads of Taliban leaders.
In turn, the Khans can use the gold to buy the small arms, and the
occasional mechanized mercenary assistance which they will need
to fend off the Mayor of Kabul, and eventually the Chinese.
I think we didn’t/don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything in the middle east with our leaders. We can boast all we want to , we have not won, will not win. Leave. It’s just common sense. We never never never should have gone over there as we did, and then we should not have stayed
Hell!!! drill for our own oil, forget theirs. But nnoooooo too many regulations, just trying to keep us dependent on Canada, Mexico, the middle east. Those people have fought for eons, killed each other ,blamed everyone else. Leave them alone, or kill them covertly, not with such dramatic drama as we have caused.
Covert action would have probably been more effective
“Norquist may genuinely feel that the war isn’t worth the cost even if the surge is working, though I’d like him to explain how abandoning the country to the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other terrorists is a cost-saving measure over the long-term. He may just be a political opportunist and feel the Republican Party would benefit from turning against a war on which public opinion is turning increasingly sour.”
I don’t know who this guy Norquist is and frankly, I’ve never heard of him (let alone if anybody pays any attention to him). What I do know is that both the Pentagon AND Obama are NOT being honest with the American public. If you really think that Afghanistan is going to turn into Iowa in the near future just because the US Army is there, dream on. This is a closed tribal civilization that hates and mistrusts outsiders, let alone non-Muslim “infidels.” We have been there for almost ten years now and, aside from fighting the Taliban to basically a draw, somebody is going to have to show me what we’ve gained from all of the blood and treasure we’ve spent there.
And please, please don’t tell me that more Afghan women are going to school, or that we’ve built lots of roads and hospitals. This was never, every, a war about giving the Afghan women the right to vote, or to make sure Afghans had a good health program or nice roads to drive on. This war was, and always has been, about defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda. It should not have been about nation-building, and the Army knows it.
The Pentagon and Obama are NOT being honest to the American public because they are NOT giving Americans a realistic assessment on how long we will have to stay in Afghanistan in order to change public attitudes there. It is NOT inconceivable that we will have to stay there maybe 50 or 60 years in order to “educate” a generation of Afghans and convince them that the United States is a better alternative than the Taliban and al Qaeda. You can’t expect to change thousands of years of suspcious Muslim upbringing in only 10 years. Maybe not even in 50 years. And our military knows that.
So, America, are you willing to make this commitment? Do you want to stay in Afghanistan for a generation or two? Do you want to invest another trillion or so dollars and God knows how many lives to this adventure in a country nobody really cares about, except the Taliban? Unless we have an honest and frank discussion on what our end game in Afghanistan is, then we should leave. Unless this war starts getting the support of the American people, and fast, then we should leave. Wars are never won unless there is a clear objective. It is no longer acceptable saying that we are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and, if we leave, the world will end.
Stop it. We have the power to turn Afghanistan into an ash heap, and the Taliban know it. If the Taliban take over Afghanistan again, who really cares, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES? We should leave and make it perfectly clear that if they do allow al Qaeda to launch another attack from Afghanistan, we will wipe it off the map, AND MEAN IT. Or we could maintain some bases there, like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and stay for over 100 years in a hostile land, like we have been at Guantanamo Bay. Because, ladies and gentlemen, we either do that or make Afghanistan the 51st state, because that’s we’re we are headed for now.
Liberty-Norquist did a good job the last 10-15 years on the tax/spend front. What he’s up to now, and why, who knows? He may be out of his league or out of his mind.
What we should be going for in Afghanistan is a steady state (no pun intended). We want the Afghans preoccupied with each other. Let them have their tribal disputes, blood feuds, raiding and kidnapping. It’s their thing. We’ve got the NFL.
A lot of black presence and very little green s/b our final goal. Some spooks, some advisors, a judicious cash disbursement supporting a quiet word to the wise. Let Afghanistan go back into it’s good night while we keep a watchful eye.
Yes please get out of Afghanistan now. It is time for the Republicans to stop their blind support for this disaster in the making. Building democracy in these societies is a joke and impossible. While we are at it let us call for the withdrawal from Nato and Europe at the same time; it should seem to anyone that it is time for the Europeans to pay for their own defense; let us bring all the troops home now; let those who want democracy or whatever do the dying for it not American troops.
John-That is exactly what we did in the 90s. Now we’re back.
The US has a national security interest in deterring the Chinese from
wars of territorial conquest, or more accurately, of natural resource
acquisition. Afghanistan turns out to be loaded with Lithium, amongst
other mineable minerals; The Tribal Khans, with US assistance, can
hold their territory against takeover attempts, and sell the ore
to the highest bidder, or the greenest exploiter, whatever.
there has to be,absolutely has to be, a better way than the way we in America do things,handle our war and economic affairs. i don’t know where our leaders…term used loosely, got there experience. pathetic..playground stuff
.. i would hate to meet china in war..we can’t even handle them economically.
we live in a wonderful country, that is being shamed and demolished before our eyes
there has to be,absolutely has to be, a better way than the way we in America do things,handle our war and economic affairs. i don’t know where our leaders…term used loosely, got there experience. pathetic..playground stuff
.. i would hate to meet china in war..we can’t even handle them economically.
we live in a wonderful country, that is being shamed and demolished before our eyes….get the hell out of the middle east and do things differently…something that works for all
Norquist, Gingrich, opportunists both. Along with Ralph Reed, they’ve offered little that is not tainted by a troubling willingness to contradict principles they loudly claim to embody and choose some pretty indefensible folks to prop up. Rubio’s another one. We need an ethics crop-duster for the geographical southeast corner of the Republican Party.
This article is about the opinions of Grover Norquist, who is from Massachusetts. Your anti-Southern bigotry is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Norquist and others like him (Chris Buckley, Colin Powell et. al.)probably never were conservatives in the first place. Just political hacks. Now that the mask is off, let’s call him what he really is: a leftist.
Norquist needs to speak quite clearly on where it is exactly, he’s coming from. From his former tax watchdog position, he now seeks, as Mr. Mauro points out, to interject himself into the geopolitical realm. The facts revealed here speak to a less than sincere motivation.
It is an unfortunate fact that large institutions (particularly governments and their armies) always seek to expand their power and influence. Not necessarily with any particular goal, as Reagan’s Lebanon failure will attest. Gen. Petraeus seems to understand this. Despite being a military man,his strategy of keeping the military presence as small as possible, while building relationships with the tribal leadership will hopefully lead to a stable (an admittedly vague term in this context) Afghanistan. This “stability” will always be tenuous and need to be fed constantly with money and other means of support.
That cost, however, will always be far less than a massive military presence. And far more productive. It is very important that the societal norm of tribal autonomy be respected and encouraged. That would be as good as it gets, and not bad at all.
Obama’s agenda may not be realistic and it aopears that Norquist is attempting to further disrupt the timetable.
Anyone who trusts Norquist is a fool. He was up to neck in the Abrams scandal, and he was an originated of a Wednesday Morning Breakfast which makes him a middle management ice skater. He also shills for Saudi Arabia.
Throw the bum out!! Better him thrown out then Robert Welch.
Norquist is a closet Islamist.
He had ties to convicted terrorists Sami Al Arian and Abdulrahman Alamoudi. He is tied to CAIR. He advocated the very lax anti-profiling policies that were found to have contributed to 911.
Read here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heath-harrison/norquist-puts-300000-into_b_769292.html and http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/grover_norquists_jihad.html
He friends with all the enemies of this country; he wants the US out of Afghanistan because he seeks Islamic victory.
Grover is a fine piece of work, a poster child for transparency.
Just think of him as Osama Bin Laden’s forked tongue agent and you cannot be far from wrong.
Exactly. He was once asked if he was a Muslim. His response: “no comment”. He’s a Muslim, and not the all-too-scarce “moderate” kind.
I am no fan of Grover Nordquist, and I believe that his sentiments are pro-Islam. He probably sees our departure from Afghanistan as stategically favorable to the the forces of Islam. My view is just the opposite. What is favorable to the forces of Islam is our nonsensical determination to remain bogged down in an unwinnable conflict in that wretched country. We have deluded ourselves into believing that chasing after illiterate goat herders in the hills of Afganistan will somehow turn the tide of Islamic jihad.
In the column Mr. Mauro says, speaking of Mr. Nordquist, “I’d like him to explain how abandoning the country to the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorists is a cost saving measure over the long-term.” By using the word “abandoning” he tries to create an image of us deserting the poor citizens of Afghanistan who are under siege from by an alien force.
The reality is that everyone in Afghanistan, the general population, and the alphabet soup terrorist groups are all Muslims. As such, in the end they will ALWAYS align themselves with their brethren against the hated infidels.
One last point. In Afghanistan the day to day lives of the male population are not affected much one way or the other Taliban or no Taliban. In the long-term that basic cultural/religious fact is why we will never make any meaningful progress in that primative land.
Norquist sounds like a real tool. On the other hand, I’ve have no idea what we are doing in Afghanistan. Killing AQ and Taliban is great and all but building a functional western Democracy – ha! We could be there another 30 years and they wouldn’t be civilized.
Supporting or opposing foreign adventures for domestic political gain
is a time-honored tactic which has morphed from tacky but tolerable to
existential risk; The new Game is being played for keeps, and for high
stakes, and people like Norquist need to wake up and notice this 21st
century reality.
The Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other terrorists used Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacks on the West. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn’t do the same again. This is a fight that must be won
No, it doesn’t, largely because “the launching pad” is 12,000 miles from “the West”–or at least, OUR part of “the West.” So tell us about all the “attacks on the West” which have succeeded in the last 5 years or so.
OK, we waited. No response?
The hubris of your position: “We know better than Afghanis how Afghanis should live” is precisely the hubris of John McCain and Obama in pronouncing how Egyptians should run their own country.
There is nothing to win in Afghanistan and it is not worth big amounts of US blood or treasure. Rumsfeld was right. We need to find a workable small footprint strategy to hunt and disrupt the bad guys but forget about nation building.
Unlike Iraq this place has always been a shyte hole. Ieaq was babylon and sophisticated etc… – the people are very different and there is a chance that some type of liberal mindset can develop and exist there even in the middle of their Islamic faith. That proposition is probably an impossibility in Afghanistan.
Here is one conservative for rethinking this. In any case I do not trust Norquist due to the mosque thing.
Norquist is wrong on the mosque and right about Afghanistan but for the wrong reasons. The PJM readers are correct and mostly in agreement about getting out of the Middle East for the right reasons. Consider this:
The politicos tell us if we don’t keep fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that al-Qaeda will take over these countries and turn them into training grounds for terrorists. They would then presumably come here and kill more of us like they did on 9/11.
A more sensible solution might be to simply stop granting visas to al-Qaeda operatives to come to America in the first place. All nineteen of the 9/11 terrorists and the underwear bomber had government-issued visas. How would they have gotten here without them? Our east and west coasts are protected by vast oceans, and we can protect our north and south by bringing the troops home and stationing them on those borders.
Some concerns with this plan are:
1) How do we know who to refuse visas to?
The answer is anyone that is an Arab Muslim. This will involve some racial and ethnic profiling, which members of some political groups (that aren’t on their way to a war in the Middle East) may find more horrific than war. The moratorium on Arab Muslim visas can be lifted just as soon as the jihad is over.
2) If our troops secure the borders, how will nannies and gardeners from Mexico be able to come to America for a better life?
They will have to enter the U.S. legally by filling out an immigration application. This policy change will upset the political groups that fail to understand that there is nothing wrong with Mexico that the Mexicans can’t fix themselves.
3) What about terror cells already in the United States?
Sending more troops to the Middle East won’t get rid of them. If Homeland Security does its job, we can eventually disband the TSA.
4) If we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, won’t it be taken over by al-Qaeda?
Maybe, but since the President announced our withdrawal timeline, al-Qaeda operatives will just hide in the mountains or get some R&R in Iran until we leave and then take over anyway. We can’t save Iraq and Afghanistan unless we’re prepared to stay there indefinitely, or to neutralize Iran.
5) Americans want Osama bin Laden’s head. What about our revenge?
Give it up. Osama’s head isn’t worth the life of one more American soldier. Besides, the spread of Islam along with its militant faction is a numbers game we can’t win. We should cut our losses now and concentrate on protecting our homeland.
Please consider this politically incorrect but more cost-effective and practical alternative to war, and bring it up with your congressman.
Why are you limiting it to Arab Muslims? Any and all muslims should be denied visas. They all live by the same Koran, “kill the unbelievers where ever you find them”. A muslim is a muslim. The koran is not open to interpretation or reformation. It is a guide for everyday living forever. Do not let any muslims in. And any muslim that preaches or advocates jihad, deport them forthwith.
Other wise I agree with everything you said. Until we decide to protect ourselves, we are going to lose this struggle between between islam and freedom.
So long as the U.S. follows the Bush/neocon policy of “spreading democracy to blighted areas of the world” under the deluded notion that “winning the peace is more important than winning the war” — while failing to eliminate the real problems, which are Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabian promotion of Islamism, then Afghanistan is guaranteed to be a losing proposition, even more than Vietnam was.
On the other hand, if we were to actually fight to defeat the real enemies (Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) who are promoting the Islamist ideology and funding our enemies, then the war could be over in about a month. Tops. Part 1 of the solution: obliterate the government of Iran, the Iranian military, and their nuclear installations. That’s a one day operation. Part 2: Eliminate every Saudi sheik promoting and funding Islamism. Another week. Part 3: Inform the Pakistani government that they’ve got two weeks to take total control of the tribal regions or face obliteration. And the same time to turn over their nuclear arsenal for destruction.
On those terms, we can leave Afghanistan and Iraq in a very short time. Democracy over there? Not Our Problem. And that will save our economy another few hundred billion dollars a year, not to mention the lives and demoralization of our troops over there who are *all* fed up with the incompetence of their leaders.
Concur. No one can explain the STRATEGIC objective for us being in Afghanistan. Right now the US military treats it as a live fire zone for training our troops and testing equipment. Which does have its advantages. Other than that, it is a hugely expensive waste of time consuming material at the end of a long supply line.
Please remember the British couldn’t hold Afghanistan, nor could the Russians – so what makes us think it is a good idea for us to hold it. With Tribes you just can’t win.
Norquist is very old news. He may have had something meaningful to say back in the 1980s and the days of the Reagan Revolution. His lower profile during the big spending years of Bush/Cheney and the last Republican controlled Congress made him less than a realistic spokesperson on spending & budget issues.
If people want to learn how to win hearts & minds in Afghanistan, read the books by Greg Mortensen (“Three Cups of Tea;” “Another Cup of Tea”). General Petraeus and the other brass are big fans of Mortenson.
#15 Robb: your suggestions about dealing with the real enemies of the US reveal that your understanding of geopolitics is less than ideal. Bombing everyone back to the Stone Age and earlier is not realistic.
Ever wonder WHY Bush would allow muslims in the White House aftr 9/11 and his administration constantly told the American People that all muslims weren’t like those who attacked us? Blame Grover Norquist…Grover was advising a very naiive Bush administration. Grover shills for the muslim brotherhood and their ilk, sits on the board of the NRA which means as long as he’s associated with that organization, I won’t be. Maybe because he’s married to a palistinian that shapes his policies.
The administration in Afghanistan is only friendly to the West and the US because we make them personally rich and do or say nothing about the corruption that is foundational to the entire country.
The Kbrothers Karzai;
Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s President (the muscle & the law)
Ahmed Wali Karzai – head of the non-Taliban opium trade in Afghanistan (the drug lord)
Mahmoud Karzai – leading figure in Afghanistan banking (the $ launderer)
We conservatives cannot decry the intransigence of political Islam on the one hand, and expect the democratization of a country like Afghanistan on the other. This is at best feckless, at worst schizophrenic in the extreme.
No doubt Petraus’ strategy is starting to show some results due to the brilliance of his leadership. However, in the long run it cannot be sustained unless there is a continued US military presence in that country forever.
Exporting democracy because it is some nice abstract universal idea is a flawed neo-conservative idea a la Bush, all the more so since we now know neo-conservatives are but one step removed from progressives. Neither democracy nor America itself can be sustained as simply an abstract idea… instead they are concrete entities that depend on a specific culture, religion and morality that allows a classically liberal culture of individual freedom and respect for individual expression. Islam will always be a priori at odds with these principles, and therefore true democracy (other than two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner) is impossible.
We should therefore split our policy for Afghanistan in two by doing the same to that country. Make a deal with the former Northern Alliance forces. Place them in charge of a new government, and have a large military presence in NE Afghanistan including Kabul, with the understanding that they must have a secular government that respects true democratic values throughout its laws and daily life. Make that one country and call it Afghanistan. Simultaneously ship Karzai and his cronies out to form the other country as leaders of a Pushtunistan, and let them do whatever, with the understanding that we have full oversight to bomb the hell out of them, their poppy fields, and northern Pakistan wherever and whenever they presume to get militarily stronger than a few AK-47′s.