The Dangers of a New Left-Right Alliance
When President Bill Clinton moved against Serbian aggression and the ethnic cleansing practiced by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic in what remained of Yugoslovia, and finally called in NATO bombing sorties to put a stop to their aggression against Muslims in Sarajevo and Bosnia, both the Left and the remaining adherents of the Old Right moved to join together in an attempt to stop what they saw as a U.S.-sponsored aggression.
The result was the start of what I called a Red-Brown coalition — the uniting of far Right and far Left — culminating in an antiwar rally at which both Pat Buchanan and the Stalinist journalist Alex Cockburn of The Nation were featured speakers.
This division goes back to the early days of the Cold War, when the isolationist wing led by “Mr. Republican,” Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio, was beaten in the 1952 GOP primary by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who then won the presidency. With Ike’s victory in the presidential campaign, the United States continued along the bipartisan path formed earlier by President Harry S. Truman, assuring that Republicans as well as Democrats were willing to do what was necessary to fight the Cold War against the Soviets.
Now, polls show that isolationist sentiment is growing rapidly and resonates especially with some conservatives. At last year’s CPAC conference, the John Birch Society was welcomed as a sponsor, and the forces of Ron Paul combined with them to create a new antiwar bloc. Long forgotten, Robert A. Taft and those who adhere to his views have suddenly made a return to the conservative ranks. The Old Right view, Avlon writes, “is fueling grassroots conservatism with an ideologically coherent critique of both Bush and Obama, against foreign wars and the growing federal debt.”
The reason such a development is dangerous? Go back and ask yourselsf what would have happened had the Taftites and the Old Right won over the Eisenhower center-right coalition. The answer is simple. The United States would have not helped create NATO; the Marshall Plan might have been defeated; and with the support of the pro-Communist Left, Joe Stalin and his minions would have had an American government willing to follow a policy of appeasement that would have allowed Stalin to take over not just Eastern Europe, but countries like France and Italy as well. Now the new neo-isolationists are promoting a policy that stands at odds with that which under Truman, Eisenhower, and later Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. It also opposes the steps taken by George W. Bush during his administration to fight radical Islam and the War on Terror.
This return to isolationist prescriptions once again echoes the views and outlook of those on the political anti-war Left. As I wrote in my old Boston Globe article, the Buchananites promise to “champion a number of causes that also find support on the political left: protectionism to keep workers’ wages high in America, opposition to globalism (‘we will point to the pitfalls of the global free trade economy;); and the struggle against ‘global hegemony.’ Noam Chomsky probably would not put it differently.” And that is why when readers picks up The American Conservative, they might be excused for wondering if they had accidentally picked up The Nation.
So will the neo-isolationists fuse with the paleoconservatives, as Avlon fears might well happen? The danger is that those who now believe the Afghanistan war is unwinnable, and that we should scuttle our Afghanistan policy and withdraw, will soon be moving on to demand acceptance of the entire neo-isolationist agenda. If Republican leaders decide to join Coulter, Ron Paul, and Buchanan in a new alliance, hoping to benefit politically, the split could prove disastrous for the Republicans in 2012. As Avlon points out, any serious Republican nominee will have to campaign on being “strong on national security.” That is not exactly the strong point of the neo-isolationists.
While recognizing that our resources are finite and must be utilized effectively, given the very real threats we face from Islamic radicalism, among others, we can ill afford to withdraw from the world. If we do, not only will we not bequeath a solvent America to our grandchildren, they may be walking around with beards and burqas.
John Avlon is greatly exaggerating. The isolationist wing of the GOP has always existed. Pat Buchanan and his closest associates have however not been active Republicans for the last some twenty years! They are fairly marginalized individuals. I don’t see any immediate signs of a meaningful split within the GOP. The vast majority of its legislators remain committed to a strong national defense—and victory in Afghanistan.
I agree with Ann Coulter that Obama never really believed in the war in Afghanistan. As matter of fact, that’s exactly what I was also saying during the presidential campaign. Our goal in that country should be limited to defeating Muslim extremists. National building should be a very low priority. Just enough to assist our military aims. A nation where perhaps eighty-five percent of its soldiers are marginally to functionally illiterate has problems that will take a good fifty years to resolve.
But if our job is only killing, and not nation-building, doesn’t that make for the permanent war? If you don’t have a nation left behind to do your proxy killing, then how can you leave? We hope to have enough of a nation built in Iraq so that we can withdraw soon. I’m not saying that we actually can do this in Afghanistan, but only that we have to try. If GWB or Obama did/does either option, they were/will be blasted for doing it the wrong way. I am now at a point where I take most of the critiques as partisan givens; the job is to get past the bashing and figure out a policy.
But then, elections have to be won, so the bashing never stops, because there are always the Rove/Emmanuel electoral calculations/strategies at play. You guy are such earnest little dupes, but what the hell, every industry needs its labor on the floor…or they would if we had any industries left beside politics, education, medicine, financial shenanigans, cable installation.
“Our goal in that country should be limited to defeating Muslim extremists. National building should be a very low priority. Just enough to assist our military aims. ”
The problem, David, with that approach is that it leaves a vacuum. Yes nation-building (to the extent that it is at all possible) is a long term costly proposition. And Afghanistan has defeated other world empires (British & USSR) But we already tried leaving Afghanistan in the 1980s and the result was that Pakistan created the Taliban which supported AQ and I think we all know how well that turned out.
George W. Bush did have the right idea in going after AQ & the Taliban, but I don’t think he had a comprehensive solution to Afghanistan. Dear Liar simply views the Afghan war as a “crisis” best used to burnish His “I’m pro-American” credentials, even though He isn’t.
We need to chase these radical muslims from Afghanistan, and elsewhere (Somalia, Yemen, et al.,) but then there is a larger issue of having to deal with radical Islam & possibly Islam in general (not that I think Muslim = bad or want yet another world war)
We just cannot stick our heads in the ground and think that everything is o.k. The ostrich approach to foreign policy is a major reason why I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. We aren’t Switzerland, nor would I want to make the moral compromises to become Switzerland.
“We aren’t Switzerland, nor would I want to make the moral compromises to become Switzerland.”
Switzerland essentially parasites off the United States. We do its fighting for that country’s citizens.
There is simply no such thing as a “comprehensive” plan for Afghanistan. Sometimes in this cruel world one is unable to devise a grand scheme to solve an ongoing challenge. We are forced to simply muddle along doing the best we can. The Muslim extremists cannot be allowed to use this backward nation as a base for their operations. That’s the beginning and end of it.
You can’t kill the jihadists without creating something to take their place. That was our mistake after the Soviets were pushed out.
Our mistake was to completely leave Afghanistan. We should have continued to monitor events and return our troops in large numbers when deemed necessary. The terrorists must always know we will be chasing them. This limited goal serves our interests. The larger one of helping the citizens of Afghanistan to enter the 21st century is not our main concern. This distinction must be clearly understood—or we may do something really stupid.
Are we in Afghanistan to win? I thought we were there to prepare the Afghanis to defend themselves. As to the question whether the war is winnable, I remember when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and pundits left and right predicted a Russian victory because they would not be constrained (as we were in Vietnam) by the niceties of civilized conduct. Well, we all know the outcome (albeit aided by American arms, but still…).
Also, I had to smile about your labeling Alexander Cockburn a Stalinist. His father was, certainly, but AC? Perhaps, but I just see him as a far-left lowlife with, alas, a terrific talent for writing. What made me smile is the fact that he and his ilk toss the Stalinist label at other lefties who deviate from their line – e.g., Christopher Hitchens.
(Btw, today’s edition of Counterpunch.com, Cockburn’s virulently anti-Israel mag, has an lead article by Paul Craig Roberts, the “Father of Reaganomics,” who’s gone off the deep end but still produces some interesting stuff.
Joe asks: “Are we in Afghanistan to win? I thought we were there to prepare the Afghanis to defend themselves.”
Good question, though it probably should be addressed to Obama, shouldn’t it? He is the decider. If you are asking readers of your comment, I will venture an opinion. IMO the answer to your question lies in the map of the region. Between Iraq and the Afghan lies the calm and peaceful land of the Iranians. Wouldn’t it be a happy coincidence, should it ever happen, unlikely as this may be(?), that we would find ourselves at war with Iran and at the same time that we have Iran flanked by two somewhat democratic republics that are friendly and cooperative with the USA? Like this: Iraq/US—–Iran—–Afghanistan/US. Stategically and tactically this would be a very good military position in which to be. It would also be good diplomatically, so good it might cause Iran to avoid a war in spite of its present provocative patter.
Michael Steele had a glimmer of a good point lurking in his fumble tongued comment about “Obama’s war of choice.” The Afghan War was won in 2001 and the country largely quiescent for much of the Bush Administration. The basic strategy – light footprint, chase Qaeda, look for Bin Laden – was a sound one, appropriate to what is an ungovernable nation. Obama’s decision to ramp up in Afghanistan to re-fight a war already won is certainly a war of his choosing. And, don’t forget that much of his choice is driven by electoral politics. He and the rest of his party bellowed for years that Afghanistan was the Good War that we “abandoned” (while leaving behind thousands of American troops??) to fight the Bad War in Iraq. Our troops are fighting and dying in greater in Afghanistan at least in part to protect Obama’s re-election. Not what you would call a noble cause.
Iraq/Afghanistan may have been noble causes (I think they were), but after nearly 10 years of war, I think any American politician who starts trying to sell a Big Plan to invade a Third World hellhole is going to have a hard time of it. There is a large part of the electorate that has grown wary and weary of quixotic and misdirected war policy, and not all of them are “Nation” subscribers.
Surely there is a way for Republicans to make such a point without drawing “open letters” from Bill Kristol on the one hand, and cries of isolationism on the other.
“The Afghan War was won in 2001….”
Yes, and it was Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003.
Yea nevermind that the “mission accomplished” banner was referring to the sailors on the carrier group who were returning from an historic deployment and were proud that they were done with their mission. Moonbats distorted and mis-used their pride of mission completion in order to smear W Bush as stupidly declaring that the whole war was won. Way to support the troops, leftist anti-American scum.
But then again, being dishonest is the only way leftists ever get any support for their regressive pro-tyranny agenda.
We fight wars to shore up the post WWII non-communist order. Russia’s overt support for enemies such as Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now Turkey in the Middle East; India, China and North Korea in Asia; and Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, among others, in Latin America demonstrate that the battle lines are still salient.
Considering the Soviet Union’s sponsorship of PFLP, PLO, Red Army Faction, Red Brigades, the IRA, and other terrorist groups – many of which still exist or morphed into more Islamic forms – only someone with extremely high-grade intelligence or a serious blindspot for strategic thinking would fail to recognize that the current terrorist assault on the West is simply an attempt to flank NATO and its related alliances. Even if the idea of Russian sponsorship of these groups is controversial, surely the fact that the assault places us NATO-types into the same defensive camp – and that it is worthy of defense – is not controversial.
So the “paleo” argument is as stupid as the Left’s argument, and both arise out of venality and fantasy. Someone needs to retire Pat Buchanan. As Coulther is a woman, probably nothing can be done about her. But calling Afghanistan “Obama’s War” is idiotic. And everyone knows what “winning” means: setting up a competent Afghan government that can defend itself from its natural enemies, who are also out natural enemies. It really isn’t complicated as a strategy, so all this “why are we in Afganistan?” nonsense is just errant nonsense. Our public discourse is f_cked.
So it was the Soviets who bankrolled Osama Bin Laden etc? Wow, you’ve got yourself quite a scoop there.
I don’t see him saying anything like that at all.
I was a lowly Marine grunt so my military expertise is very limited, but I can read a map.The Taliban can hold out for years in the Hindu Kush and sweep down when the time is right. If the people in Afghanistan want a decent government they will have it.Nation building is for chumps.
Pedro:
This to a grunt from one who at one time sailed toward the sound of the guns.
Why would any government anywhere do anything for its people, including Europe, when Uncle Sam always stands at the ready to pony up the money for them to lead what they consider, in their way, the good life, without blood, sweat and tears as a price?
The question applies to spots on the map such as Korea,
Vietnam, France, Iraq, afghanistan, Mexico and the list goes on.
Maybe the United States should be in the business of helping friendly nations which try to help themselves and for whatever reason are unable to get it done. Call it tough love or whatever, but sometimes it’s the only chance you’ve got to set things on the right course.
Thanks for your service to our country. Viva La Mexico. Victor Davis Hanson for President in 2012.
Ronnie: there are many valid reasons for us to
“stay the course.” ironic as that may seem
from a still unreconstructed lefty such as me:
–The women. The unbearably outrageous treatment
of women under the Taliban must not be
forgotten. I don’t understand why most if not
feminist groups are not super enthusiasts for
our liberation policies. Instead all I hear
from them is a misplaced sentitment of
‘realpolitik”.
–Pakistan: If our commitment is not seen
as sustained and committed, Pakistan will not
see any of its interest in cooperating with
us, and instead will turn its foreign policy as
best suited for (mis)adventure toward India.
This will lead to instabililty and a lack of
indiginous anti terror activity. I get this
notion from intelligent Pakistanis
The primary motive for most so called feminist groups these days has become opposition to conservatives. They would rather see all Afghani women in chains than admit that Bush was right.
It’s not just these days. Many of the early Women’s Liberationists had been part of the post-WWII college-educated intellectual crowd, some of which morphed into the New Left. Much of their original rage was directed at the men who expected them to “make coffee, not policy.” For all the real legal and social hindrances that did get in the way of individual women working out their own self-actualizing lives, there were those who were more involved in their own little turf wars for a high place on what some have called the hierarchy of oppression. In other words, “Come the revolution,” they’d be queen bees.
Dr. Sanity often wrote about how that investment in victim/entitlement theory has backfired on them, since race and ethnicity will always trump sex in that worldview. Nonetheless, it trapped those women invested to some extent in feminist orthodoxy in a culture of dependence on what I call My Husband the State.
Other left-of-center groups have also gotten into a too-incestuous investment in the success of the Democrat Party, such as the Sierra Club in the last presidential election.
Meahwhile, there is a growing demographic of women who are “feminist” in terms of creating fulfilling lives on their own terms without accepting limitations on what they can do just because they’re women. Because they do this without being doctrinnaire feminists, they scare the wits out of those who view feminism as part of the left agenda. See, e.g., Sarah Palin.
Attempting to destroy women who don’t follow the party line is anything but a new phenomenon. I myself still have scars from back in the day.
I don’t think you have to worry too much about a GOP split, Ron. As you can tell from the multiple articles on PJM and other right-wing media outlets, the party strategy is coalescing around an old theme:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76302/fox-news-the-doj-pseudo-scandal-and-white-racial-hysteria
Lee Atwater lives!
Just when I try to get out you pull me back in, Joe. That link of yours is just the usual librul nutsy crap. Are you seriously endorsing it? Jon Chait???
Here’s a good one for a very confused Jon Chait to read, Joe:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/affidavit-of-former-fec-commissioner-hans-von-spakovsky/
Then there is the musical question, Who’s zoomin’ who?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gvv8Q6_kpUQJt9oTUcPL2mWZO7xAD9GUJGGO0
Now what do we have here, Jojo? Why it’s another Chait chaser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8YIKz6LXY4
Far left fruitcake calls Republicans racist.
And little Joe buys it.
You could push me over with a feather.
Right, Mark, it was a baseless charge. Just ask Steve (#9):
“…send Barry and Michelle on one their fleece the honky taxpayer date nights.”
Even if that statement were racist, it’s one person making one statement. Not even a moron such as your self is stupid enough to believe such a thing proves that all Republicans are racist.
I must add that you haven’t demonstrated that Steve is either white, or a Republican. As always you let your biases and hatreds tell you what you want to know, rather than what actually is.
I just took a wild guess, Mark. And Steve himself (#8) seems to be speaking for more than himself:
“…most conservatives have become familiar with the Islamic texts and what those who follow the commands of the wicked Muhammad truly believe.”
Talk about “hatreds”….
Oh, Jojo, it’s probably just your pal Steve Benen slumming. Not all tht much to do of an afternoon in Vermont after all the maple sap is boiled down and canned/bottled.
Totally off base.
There is a war. That war is the war Islam is waging against the non-Muslim world.
Afghanistan is one front of that war.
The mistake is not recognizing this war for what it is.
The U.S. should not be in the business of nation-building. The U.S. military is not a social worker, that is not it’s mission. The rules of engagement in all of these conflicts is plain stupid. We will not win ”hearts & minds” – this is mythology.
The only effective strategy is to kill the enemy. If there is collateral damage, meaning civilian casualties, tough sh*t.
This war has many fronts – it is a global conflict. We cannot win if we are squeemish. There is an interesting article on this subject at SULTAN KNISH blogspot, ”The Immorality of the High Moral Ground.”
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
A further example of mistaken policy can be found at DEBKAFILE, ”Moscow Pledges Teheran Oil Products – Against US Embargo.”
http://www.debka.com/
The U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or anywhere else cannot be won without effectively dealing with Iran. This means military action – not including nation-building, of course.
We are fighting an enemy, Islam, which cannot be appeased.
Until we have politicians who recognize this threat, we will continue to be defeated.
Mr. Radosh is clueless.
The reason most conservative no longer support the war in Afghanistan is because unlike Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan most conservatives have become familiar with the Islamic texts and what those who follow the commands of the wicked Muhammad truly believe.
All conservatives cheered the pounding and decimation we inflicted upon the Taliban initially but after that we should have left them with the promise that if they threatened us in any way our return would be something for them to fear. But no, we refused to name our enemy or state who or what was at war with us – Islam – and decided to go nation building in an Islamic nation with no regard to the teachings of Muhammad and his evil ideology. It wasn’t “terrorism” or “radical Islam” or some fictive PC BS that guys like Kristol so cowardly invent like “Islomofascism”, Islam was at war with us. The kind of Islam taught and practiced by the founder Muhammad. Buchanan never seems to have a problem with Muhammad’s teachings. Obama seems to embrace them.
So how does our enemy define victory and what do they want. Their victory is the imposition and installment of Sharia law based government which is what we are sending our brave men to fight and die for. We have imposed upon them criminally insane ROE such as the world has never seen before. We have declared victory in Iraq through our COIN strategy while their Muslim government commits genocide against their Christian communities under our “supervision”. Remember all those purple fingers as Bill Bennett likes to say, yes I do Bill, the ones that just voted to install a Sharia based government that will be our eternal enemy.
Now Obama wants to replicate what we did in Iraq while people clamor for victory by winning the hearts and minds of those who follow Muhammad’s commands – to whenever possible impose Sharia law and wage jihad against all non believers until the are either converted, kill, subjugated or enslaved.
Mr. Radosh along with the lies of Kristol, Liz Cheyney and Pat Buchanan are clueless about Islam. Obama is not. Let the Afghans stay in Afghanistan. If you want victory stop letting Muslims invade our country through our insane immigration (yes legal) policy.
Best post I’ve seen on this.
Fear is what we need to leave behind us, if anyone things these people will be grateful for our idea of a better government they are delusional. Hell, how many here are grateful for our present government?????
The key is to instill in the core of their being that if they f__k with the US they will all die, period.
Well the other day John Bolton was saying- we have an enemy that wants to die, how do you work with that mindset?
What we think as logical (threats or fear of death as a means to make them stand down) is actually giving them what they want- to be martyrs and live better in afterlife
we have a enemy unlike others we have faced, one that values death over life
mothers who celebrate death of their own children- what could make a mother think in that way? a way of thinking that defies nature and instinct?
even animals grieve over loss of children
I think the misguided Mr. Radosh should start worrying more about fools like Bill Kristol venturing leftward with their nation building nonsense in Muslim countries.
Maybe we can send him to the Moon with Obama’s new Muslim NASA initiative. Better yet, send Barry and Michelle on one their fleece the honky taxpayer date nights. One way. That sounds like victory to me.
I think the point behind “internationalism”, the active American engagement in the world has in its core belief in american exceptionalism. I’d formulate this as follows: “Look, americans are people too. We sometimes make mistakes. But we strive to do good in the world, and very often, we are better than the alternative”.
As a “non-american” I think the US has been a force for good.
People tend to forget that NATO STILL has a presence in Kosovo, over 10 years AFTER Bill Clinton decided to assist the Muslim population there. Aside from the fact that Muslims around the world never seem to give us any credit for that, Kosovo is still an open-ended commitment for the United States with no end in sight. Is this what we have to look forward to in Afghanistan?
The reason why support is disintegrating for the war in Afghanistan is because nobody has explained to the American public what our goal there is. What is the end game in that country? Obama and the military say it’s to defeat the Taliban. Well, what does that mean? Does that mean we fight for another 20 or 30 years until this generation of Taliban fighters dies out and then their children simply give up? Because if you expect religious zealots like the Taliban to simply give up, you know nothing about Muslim jihadits, let alone the culture of the people in that country. These people hold grudges for centuries and the only thing they have to hold on to in their pathetic little lives is the Islam and their tribes. So if Allah and the local tribal chief tell them to keep fighting, they keep fighting until somebody kills them.
And what about al Qaeda? The primary reason for invading Afghanistan was to defeat al Qaeda, NOT the Taliban. If al Qaeda simply moves to Pakistan and lets the Taliban keep fighting in Afghanistan, is it our mission then to fight them in both Pakistan AND Afghanistan? Talk about an endless war.
I’ve said it many times before on this web site. We should have gone into Afghanistan like the British General Lord Roberts of Kandahar did over 100 years ago. Our mission should have been what was called a “Punitive Expedition,” where we went into that country, killed as many of the Taliban and al Qaeda as possible, put in a provisional government friendly to the United States, and then left. If the Taliban came back into power, you invade again, doing the same thing, only killing more of them. These mini-invasions are still a lot cheaper in terms of blood and treasure than it is to occupy the entire country forever.
Another option could be to maintain a large base in Afghanistan to prevent al Qaeda from taking over the country again. We have Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and for over 100 years now that base has served as a warning to the Cubans that if they cause America any problems, we have the option of invading them from there. It is a costly option, but one that seems to work well and it at least gives some stability to the region. But, even though we have a base at Guantanamo, we certainly do NOT have to run the entire country.
So what is the end-game in Afghanistan? As General David Petraeus said in Iraq, “How does this end?” Perhaps if we got an answer to that question there would be more support for the war back here at home.
Mr Radosh
So, one piece by Ann Coulter, who has sterling conservative credentials, means she is an isolationist and that and that she and other people that might agree want to “withdraw from the world”? And, who are the “brown”? If those conservatives are the “browns” then what color are your type? Red (pink?), white and Israeli blue? Your piece is over the top and insulting. Buchanan definitely harbors some bad feelings toward Jews but even he is not wrong about everything. I am a new reader to this site and after having read a few other of your pieces I am disappointed at how “lightweight” this one sounds. You sound unduly nervous.
Rob
There are some intelligent comments here.
For correction purposes, Ron, a careful reading of Ann’s column will show that she supports the war in Afghanistan. What she is questioning is the need to vastly increase our footprint and engage in nation building in what is highly unprofitable ground. A dispassionate look at the situation suggests that we were doing better with Jock McKiernan and far less troops than we are doing now with enhanced “rules of engagement” and the contemplation of medals for restraint.
Ann’s resignation demand was, of course, satirical. Ann, like many of us, is getting rather tired of demands for apologies and resignations every time someone says something someone else disagrees with.
Her point about “permanent wars” is sophisticated and demands thought by all. Afghanistan made war on us, so it is our war – neither Bush’s nor Obama’s. However, after the breakout of peace at the end of the cold war, we’ve been in almost perpetual conflict somewhere. Certainly, this kind of continual crusade is far from what the founders had in mind and, as Ann correctly points out, this sort of Wilsonian militant idealism isn’t exactly Republican. You don’t have to be either an isolationist or a Buchananite – Coulter is neither – to wonder if this really is the best way to forward our interests.
“Isolationism” is being used by the author like the NAACP uses “racist” to smear those who disagree with his point of view on policy and strategy. Recognizing the futility of trying to force Afghanis to form a representative democracy is not isolationism, it is rationalism. Imagine for a moment a gathering of the founding fathers of the United States debating lessons of history and how they should be applied to forming the constitution. Now try to picture a gathering of Afghans doing the same. The debate we should be having is how best to serve our national security given the failure of nation building and reverse domino theory schemes we currently pursue. The strategies adopted for combatting the Islamic sphere need to move beyond the old ideas that came out of WWII and the cold war.
Mr Radosh.
Why is my comment still awaiting moderation?
Just asking.
Thanks.
We have an Afghanistan policy? I thought the plan was to hang around there and wait for a miricale. Maybe the Taliban will all covert to Christianity, maybe the Karzai’s will decide honesty is the best policy.
Otherwise, all our nation building is a waste of money and lives and we should have just stuck to killing the bad guys.
Sad fact is this war likely will never really end, since we still refuse to acknowledge the mindset of the opponent. Containment and suspicion of their intentions should be the strategy, and should have been from the get-go. Denial is a river in Egypt.
There is no comparison between WW II and the mess that is going on today. In fact then we FOUGHT. Now we have weaponized social services. The left might want US out for their reasons but a lot of the country wants US out for reasons that are becoming too obvious. When we do not secure the borders, when we have the “enemy” bowing the Mecca in the middle of Manhattan and building citadels of conquest near sacred ground, and we are doing nothing but using our blood and treasure to nation build, any sane person would realize that this is far different than our actions in the 1940′s. We are shedding blood thousands of miles away on foreign soil but we allow practitioners of the religion of HATE to infiltrate and slowly conquer? It doesn’t pass the smell test. To make the comparison is an insult to the sensibilities of many. What angers many is that this is NOT a war. It is something else entirely pretending to be a war, with many of our young people being slaughtered needlessly. I normally agree with most of your columns but this one has to stand apart. The culture of the “country” we are “fighting” in right now is far different than those of our former enemies. And there is not ONE LIFE IN AFGHANISTAN THAT IS WORTH THE LIFE OF AN AMERICAN. To think that someone in America has lost a child so what…..an Afghan can VOTE???? So a few years from now, our efforts will have been like footprints in the desert but the dead will remain dead? This “war” is not what it purports to be and Americans smell the deceit. Hence the awakening.
a symbolic gesture to be sure, but one where the opponent doesn’t read it like we intend it to be. the enemy spins it as hard as they want and we have to do damage control.
This “war” is not what it purports to be and Americans smell the deceit. Hence the awakening…
overseas contingency, reset buttons and roe that favor the enemy. we used to play army in the back yard as kids and argue about who killed who, and when it was dinner time we all went home. are we kids again? not everyone is getting to go home for dinner.
Having served in both Korea and Vietnam, I learned one valuable lesson. That lesson is, wars are fought by the military and lost by the politicians. This current crop of politicians we have today are not any brighter, nor do they have anymore backbone then the ones’ that lost those two wars. I do not fear that the military’s courage will fail, but I don’t trust the politicians or their will to win.
Mr Radosh…
There are other categorizations of political groups that overlap with yours. For instance, the “old liberals” you speak of above = “neocons.” Likewise, the pro-corporation, pro-globalization, pro-war component of the left (which some argue Obama is sympathetic too, if not in league with) is referred to as “neoliberals.” I ask you about these, because behind this particular designation is the identification of our government as being an oligarchy. Extrapolation of this scenario claims that this oligarchy is behind many, if not all wars, for their own economic profiteering reasons, which is why war for this sake is not to be desired, any more than the globalization of governance and economies is to be desired.
I would be interested to know what your perspective on this is, given that you have much more extensive sources of information and have researched matters. Does this have any place within the overall scheme of things, or is it misinformation for the sake of distraction? It is hard to get at the truth underlying partisan spin and tendencies to re-define terms.
I definitely agree; a pure anti-war isolationism is NOT the solution to our problems as a sovereign nation. We need a strong military who can act decisively to protect our nation (as in We The People) from external threats.
That would be awful…for people who can’t get enough of accidentally killing Afghan civilians at weddings. I think the rest of America—those that don’t particularly like accidentally killing Afghan civilians at weddings would soldier on. Sorry, Radosh. Have you thought of going out and killing people yourself?
Gone Goofy, how’ve you been sport? Still siding with everybody but those who stick their necks way out to protect you eh? Baby killers right? Yeah I’ve heard all the s— before. Well the internet needs tools too. Just ask Judge Smails.
Yeah I’ve heard all the s— before.
I’m thinking you actually did hear me say Baby-Killers. Since it’s not written anywhere in my comment, the only explanation is that you’re responding to an audial delusion. Explains some other stuff, too.
GG say: “I’m thinking you actually did hear me say Baby-Killers. Since it’s not written anywhere in my comment, the only explanation is that you’re responding to an audial delusion. Explains some other stuff, too.”
What other stuff. Anwyway, Gone Goofy, a thousand apologies. I had forgotten you libruls had done away with “baby killers” in favor of the new term “wedding guest killers”. Just as stupid and malicious…twice as offensive because it’s the second time your trying to pull this off. Guess you felt you needed the new insult when you changed the name of you group from the hated word libruls to that ever so appealing word progressives. Good luck with that one.
They are more than happy to sit in safety and comfort while American troops die for Obama’s and McChrystal’s and Petraues’ insane COIN, which is just a recycled clear-hold-build from Vietnam, and makes far less sense in Islamic tribal Afghanistan than it did in Vietnam. How many American troops must die for their vanity and hubris?
Anyone who thinks that NATO is like COIN and Eastern Europe, France and Italy are like Afghanistan is quite mad.
While the current ROE are rightly blamed for getting our troops killed, the fact is the COIN strategy resurrected by David Petraeus from the failed Vietnam war has caused the current ROE. They go together like Kennedys and drinking. There is nothing in Afghanistan to even win. Al Queda are almost all gone. There may be more of them in Dearborn than in Afghanistan now. The “mission” in Afghanistan has degenerated into a kind of The Bridge on the River Kwai madness.
The entire COIN [Clear-hold-build lifted from Vietnam by Petraues] strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people on a level with Al Gore’s Global Warming. The belief that we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollar and thousands of lives to reshape the culture of the Islamic world, particularly in tribal Afghanistan, is utter nonsense.
Those who support this never ending madness need to explain why the lives of our troops are of so little value.
Post-Modern COIN-age of a Failed Policy—McChrystal, Tocqueville, and the Koran
We have only two legitimate strategic interests in so-called “Af-Pak”:
1) First and foremost, seizing and destroying or removing Pakistan’s nukes
2) Second, destroying Afghanistan’s –and the Taliban’s—odious “cash crop”–opium
If the US is unwilling to pursue these two basic strategic aims, we should withdraw, lest our brave combat soldiers–subjected as they are to our heinous, COIN-based ROEs–become victim to the hopeless malaise characterized so aptly by Rudyard Kipling in his “The Young British Soldier”
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
McChrystal’s superficial, bowdlerized pieties on the Koran, and Petraeus’ complete neglect of this foundational Islamic text, contrast starkly with the contemplative, first hand observations on the Koran (and Islam) made by Alexis de Tocqueville. Shortly after his return from America, Tocqueville studied North African Islamic culture and history which included an analysis of the Koran and made two visits to Algeria, becoming one of the foremost experts on these matters, while serving as a French parliamentarian.
The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people on a level with Al Gore’s Global Warming. The idea that we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American troops lives to remold the culture of the Islamic world, particularly in Afghanistan, and with COIN, is utter nonsense.
Afghanistan isn’t even about Al Queda anymore. Even SecDef Gates has only claimed that 50 to 100 are still there and we only invaded because the Taliban wouldn’t turn over OBL and his top Lieutenants. Most Al Queda are in Pakistan. There may be more in Great Britain now than in Afghanistan. There may be more in Iran now than in Afghanistan. There may even be more now in America than in Afghanistan. They can do their plotting just as well, probably a lot better, from these places than from Afghanistan anyway. This has all degenerated into something akin to a drunk looking for his keys on the wrong block. And our troops are suppose to keep dying for this?!!!
I am conservative as it gets. And I am all for abandoning Afghanistan. Our original rationale was to punish and destroy Al Qqueda there, which we accomplished in short order. But we stayed in order to do nation-building, which is a doomed enterprise in a 7th-Century tribal society. And now we know that the jihadist movement has many, many more places to go…whether it’s Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, etc. We’re hemmoraging blood and treasure in Afghanistan, where 99% of the populace hates us – taking our bribes while sheltering the Taliban. It’s a rotten place. Time to come home.
Why don’t we take our 900 overseas military installations and relocate them to the border. That would solve immigration, and reduce military spending. I saw where Vietnam-era Senate records were released implying that the Gulf of Tonkin didn’t happen. Seriously, when will it be enough? When every “terrorist” is caught? That will be literally till doomsday. I’m a conservative Republican who is rapidly coming to the conclusion that General Butler was right, War is a Racket.
Ron Radosh, Ron Radosh Ron Radosh. You know I hold you in high regard, like a wise well traveled Uncle. But I just can’t let this pass. It’s beyond merely irritating.
“The dangers of this were spelled out brilliantly by writer John Avlon in a recent Daily Beast column titled “The War That Will Split the GOP.”
This is much worse than ‘there you go again’, to Quote the Master. Avlon is no friend of conservatives – let alone brilliant – let alone gifted – LET ALONE CONSERVATIVE! He is an oppertunistic word-whore. This one time Gulliani sycophant has been trotted out everywhere from Morning Joe or Fox to every other openly propogandistic venue for one reason; to give aid and comfort to our progressive liberal adversaries.
What exactly was so ‘brilliant’ in his beastly post in the Beast Ron? The fact Avlon actually knows the history of the Taft Isolationists?
You are congraduating the single Author most responsible for the smear campaign Ben Jealous is attempting to pull off. Avalon started this viciousness in the media with his book – and has been cashing in on it ever since. The man is a creaton. You of all people singling him out for praise is deeply disappointing. This motley fool long ago enrolled himself in the I.F. Stone school of jounalistic make believe opinon passing itself off as reporting.
When cornered on why it is he seems to be exclusively booked to criticise rather than critique conservatism Avlon’s only answer is that he is a New Yorker and a firm believer in capitalism. Hardly.
He is a opportunist in love with filthy lurcre and likewise devoted to bringing as much grief to actual conservatives as humanly possible, esspecially the ones who made a fool of his former Bosses ‘southern strategy’ when running for Prez; namely deciding it was a good idea to delay running until after Super Tuesday! (It would save money and let the others knock each other off!! Pretty stupid.)
If Avlon is so gifted then answer this:
Why hasn’t anyone managed to take Andrew Breitbart up on his 100K reward regarding the reputed racial slurs following the victory March after passing Health Care? Or why has there been such a glaring lack of evidence besides a half dozen crazies in Michigan when it comes to the supposed rise of vigilante violence?
Because the fales charges of racism are a political tactic to try and discredit the Tea Party & conservatives in general – even now taken up by a desperate Obama – sending his wife to stir up (hopefully)the black vote come the midterms at the recent NAACP event.
Likewise when it comes to the vigilante charge. It’s always the same disclaimer – ‘just wait and see…it’s coming.’ Yet this peroid of unrest has been remarkably NON-VIOLENT (arguably even moreso than even the Ike presidency mentioned in the history lesson!).
It’s an inconvienent truth for liars like Avlon; in the face of massive unemployment and economic hardship & our second major political uprising over immigration in the past ten years – there is squat to substantiate this guys accusations and observations.
Yet Ron Radosh suggests the twerp has earned a promotion? Now we should start taking his advice when it comes to foreign policy?
How can you even dare mention his name along side Max Boot or the Kagans let alone Bill Kristol? What are you thinking?
This is one of two kinds of silver haired senior moments Ron. Either you made a poor judgement that you can correct. Or. You are so lost to the ravages of time that you’ve just crossed over into Clifford Clark territory – only instead of a banking scandal where you were tragically and shamefully used by people who knew better – you have been led by the ring in your nose to a bed in a ‘retirement community’ by fellow editors and writers.
John Avlon is a toxic waste site – think LOVE CANAL. His observations about Taft & Ike matching up with Obummer or Rommney in Kandahar are barely pedestrian. They amount to the small minded ‘puts and haves’ of a bookie in Queens playing with someone elses money.
This punk is having his day in the sun(If one can call MORNING JOE a fumigated sunlight stage). But come these midterms his flavor will rightly fade. Without Pelosi in power there becomes less reason to bother booking the ruminations of a soothsaying propagandist who barely batted .200 when there was a thriving market for his bomb throwing crap.
AS for the real question – will these differences between powerful groups in conservatism today hand the Dems what they want? Will we trend back to isolationism? It is a riduculous suggestion.
The America First & Taft wing LIVED IN A TIME when they could relive the late 19th century through the eyes of folks like you Ron. I mean in 1950 you could listen to the wisdom of those who lived in an America THAT WAS TRUELY ISOLATIONIST!
Today we hear from fops like Ron Paul who might as well be talking about the Revolutionary Era as much as fantasizing about abolishing the Fed. We have been the leading military and economic power since WWII – and we long ago lost the direct linage to those who could ressurect a tangible link to that Isolationst strain.
Those alive today only know of the American Century – which is why so many of us barely educated voters have caught on to just how antagonistic and alien American Exceptualism is to Obama and his agenda.
There isn’t some earth shatter split about to take place and hand the Democrats a vital distraction. It’s hogwash. Even with McCrystal’s exit it has been reassuringly apparent that the military is solidly conservative. The Obama impulse to declare surrender is amply challenged. If with the numbers and momentum this Chicagoian thug brought to Washington he couldn’t push Cap ‘N Trade – what makes you believe he will be successful in gutting the military?
That is the real threat of prolonged Democratic control – you think right now (correctly) it’s scandalist the way Obama treats Israel? Barney Frank has already hinted publicly at how Obama and his ilk believe we can tackle our debt problems – and in that they are in complete agreement with the Ron Paulists; close all military installations world wide and close half of them at home.
Instead of having a military budget that is six-times larger than the four countries closest to us – shut it all down. That frees up a bunch of grants for green development. Just as with engergy policy it is the same with military spending – Dems are not off with some grand strategy – its simple; impose through austerity.
This was the chant of the peacenicks in the 70′s was it not? How has this obsession been any different than the one with Health Care – a staple in the governing view of Democrats?
Well Health Care IS NOT OVER fellows. Nor is there any chance the One gets to trash our military down to double the size of NATO. If he dares to try he would be impeached.
Ron:
“Well Health Care IS NOT OVER fellows. Nor is there any chance the One gets to trash our military down to double the size of NATO. If he dares to try he would be impeached.”
Open borders.
Mandatory Universal Healthcare.
Two Supreme Court appointments and counting, in less than 19 months.
Finance Services Reform.
A one color only Justice Department.
Takeover of auto companies, insurance companies, financial institutions etc.
Outright lies, “on Cspan”.
Buying votes of Senators.
Apologising for the United States of America in front of despots around the world.
Not bad for a year and a half by a guy that will if he tries be “impeached.”
What are we waiting for? He’s guilty. When will the trial take place?
Don’t hold your breath Ron. Remember Tienamen Square where the little guy with a small flag stepped in front of the tank. Didn’t turn out so well for him if I recall the event correctly.
The Afghanistan war is unwinnable so long as Islam remains in the hearts and minds of the people there. Regardless of what conditions are met, and whether the war is considered won or not, if the people there remain Muslim, once the coalition forces leave, anything they may have accomplished will collapse.
Nonsense! There _are_ countries that are predominantly Muslim that aren’t terrorist states. Indonesia is one. Turkey is one, although it shows concerning signs of a slide toward fundamentalism….
I see no reason to assume that a country which is predominantly Muslim HAS to be a terrorist state that threatens other nations, especially the West. That’s not to say that Afghanistan CAN’T revert to being a terrorist state, as it was when the Taliban was in power, but it’s not inevitable.
Ron Radosh: Have you studied Hugh Fitzgerald’s opinion on this matter? He is not isolationist but opposes the “War on Terror” as it is being fought (as conventional land based warfare).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/fitzgerald-general-casey-obscures-the-pellucid-air-of-aspen.html
I invite anyone to read this article and the rest he has written regarding the illfated wars, especially in Afghanistan, and to refute what he says.
“Polls show that the majority of Americans have their doubts that it is winnable.”
There’s something profoundly disturbing about the notion that public policy is made on the basis of what ordinary, uninformed, people THINK is true. When you consider how much propaganda, spin, and distortion the average person is exposed to and how ill-equipped most people are to even perceive that – no thanks to the main-stream media and our educational systems – it’s just plain frightening to think that national policies are made on that basis.
Suppose for a moment that the average person is WRONG about the war in Afghanistan and we are actually winning. (I have a career soldier friend here in the Canadian Forces that did a tour in Afghanistan and continually monitors the situation. He assures me that we (the West) ARE winning.) If we make policy on the basis that we are losing when we are actually winning, we are surely gigantic fools!
Now, there is no doubt that it can be very difficult to assess when a war is being won or lost. Even the armies involved don’t really know sometimes until the dust has finally cleared. So how on earth are civlians, many of whom may never have donned a uniform and who aren’t privy to all the secret intel that the country’s leaders have, supposed to assess whether we are winning or losing a given war? This seems completely ridiculous to me. And then to compound this by making policy – or voting – on the basis of what uninformed people THINK is happening is even more insane.
It’s a wonder that democracy works at all sometimes given the craziness of the way it operates sometimes.
I wish I could suggest a better way but I loathe the obvious solution suggested by my remarks: letting self-appointed elites make these decisions without input from ordinary people. That would be totalitarianism, elitism and paternalism all in one. Maybe someone here could suggest a better model, one where assessments are made by those who actually have all the appropriate information but policy is still made based on the wishes of a majority…..
Most of us conservatives agree with Coulter; it is tme to get to hell out of Afghanistan before more Ameican lives are lost. For too long the Republicans have picked up the democrat wars and carried them on; Obama and his regime are anti military and have no interest in American victory. Stop the war now and give Michael Steele credit for speaking out for the majority of Republcans.
It saddens me that their are people stupid enough to believe this kind of double-talk. A, Republicans and Democrats together okayed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. To act as if now it’s the Republicans ending a Democratic war, would insult the intelligence of an audience of average intelligence. I think you’re okay with this group, though.
No. That business with Iraq was never more than a nasty, drawn-out, destructive distraction based on lies. It had nothing to do with US security, terrorism, or al-Qaeda. Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan were always where our real enemies laid, and Obama, true to his word, focused on that as soon as he took office. But after all these years and deaths in Iraq, regardless if it was all besides the point, has apparently just burnt out so many people on any further warfare, regardless of ideology.
BC balderdash: “That business with Iraq was never more than a nasty, drawn-out, destructive distraction based on lies.” You are the one telling a nasty drawn out lie, BC. I will never stand for that big lie of yours. The entire intelligence apparatus of the West thought Iraq had WMD. So did all your Dem leaders, ALL OF THEM. They are on the record. And Iraq was a low-casualty war that ousted a tyrant and set up a democratic republic, a success. What a mokes!
Quit telling old Democrat party lies.
As an internationalist conservative with a strong interest in history, especially military history, I have great reservations about our Afghanistan policy. When waging war, leaders must choose where they want to fight, who they want to fight, and when they want to fight. Those choices should not be left to the enemy’s choosing, which would give them a great advantage. Because of geography, climate, lack of infrastructure, lack of any ports, lack of a functioning government, lack of any real strategic value (in contrast to Iraq), no leaders in their right minds would want to get mired in Afghanistan, where only an indefinite war of attrition would be the likely result. This has been recognized for thousands of years, and Afghanistan, in contrast to Mesopotania (Iraq), has not been the site for repeated military campaigns.
So the question is not whether a campaign in Afhanistan is a moral and just undertaking (it is), but whether or not it is a wise policy. I fear not.
My solution would be to concede Afghanistan, but bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran. Unfortuanetly,I know that will never happen. So while we bleed battling in Afghanistan, Iran will win the strategic war.
“When waging war, leaders must choose where they want to fight” how true, I often find myself bewildered by our decision not to fight Hitler in central Africa rather than Europe.
Well, dobranotes to you too. “Iran will win the strategic war.” Iran ain’t gonna win any war, my very good friend. Don’t you go worrying about that.
This whole Afghan war gives me a bad feeling. As long as the Imams keep screeching and the Madrassas keep pumping out graduates, there will always be more Taliban. In my humble opinion, we are going about this the wrong way; we are not in a war against armies, we are in a war against hate speech. Why don’t I hear Western leaders challenging Islamic countries about the hate propaganda that is spread so widely in their countries? And why don’t the Western leaders just stop playing along with the lies. There is no Middle-Eastern peace process, let’s stop embarrassing ourselves by talking about it. We are not going to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan as long as we are unclean Infidels.
Let’s get real and stop playing narrative charades. Sheesh!
The Left-Right alliance that is really problematic is the Western Left and the Islamic Right. (A powerful subsidiary of the Western Left – Third World Alliance.)
Keep your eye on the ball Ron.
Gutter Watch:
From PJM, 7/19
13. Ken Besig Israel “There was a joke during WWII that Hitler would die on a Jewish Holiday, the punch line was that any day Hitler died would be a Jewish Holiday. Well, Israelis are beginning to feel the same way about Obama.”
Sorry to clutter your blog, Ron, but as usual PJM wouldn’t allow me to protest this repulsive statement elsewhere.
Nutty librul watch.
“Sorry to clutter your blog.”
Progressive “Rules for Blogs” Rule # 137: The One must never be allowed to become the butt of a joke, no matter how hyterically funny he may be.
Obama’s death a Jewish holiday. Yeah, Freddy, I can see why an a-hole like you would find that funny.