Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Hell No, They Won't Go!

I've long expected the "good war" in Afghanistan to become the new "bad war" once we achieved victory in Iraq. Even before the Iraq Surge began to show signs of progress, anti-war types giddy over their apparent progress in losing the Iraq War in the spring of 2007 even let this goal of losing in Afghanistan too slip out.

The line of thinking for these formerly pro-Afghan War types is that it is regrettably too late to focus on Afghanistan now. Sure, they've long argued we are "distracted" by Iraq from winning in Afghanistan, but they can hardly maintain that position now that we have stomped our enemies in Iraq, now can they? That might mean they'd have to support an actual war we are fighting right now!

Bob Herbert uses this reasoning to oppose the Afghanistan Surge planned for 2009, and ups the ante' by invoking Vietnam as well:

And yet, while we haven’t even figured out how to extricate ourselves from the disaster in Iraq, Mr. Obama is planning to commit thousands of additional American troops to the war in Afghanistan, which is already more than seven years old and which long ago turned into a quagmire. ...

The time to go all out in Afghanistan was in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 terror attacks. That time has passed.

Ah, a triple play of idiocy. Herbert soars above his usual banal idiocy in this piece. One, we figured out how to "extricate" ourselves from Iraq by winning. Two, invoking "quagmire," the officially designated term for Vietnam and Vietnam-like conflicts, is a two-fer of idiocy. But for Congress abandoning South Vietnam, we'd have won that war--so it was a "quagmire" only because '70s anti-war types like Herbert ensured our loss. And three, setting aside whether overthrowing the Taliban regime was going "all out" or not, Herbert hits the "darn the luck but it is too late to win in Afghanistan--wish we'd done it way back when" line of reasoning that all Goldilocks Warriors embrace.

I once thought that they could support a war that a proper liberal launches, but I'm beginning to wonder if they can ever find Mr. Good War. All they're good for is a cruise missile strike or so--the one-night-stands of warfare--and then they're out the door.

Actually, Herbert throws in another major piece of idiocy with his call for an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan. To me, this has always been a liberal code word for determining at what point we give up and come home--on the assumption that we will lose. When going to war, the correct question to ask is how do we win?

I admit I think the Afghanistan Surge is unnecessary because I don't see us as losing as the conventional wisdom holds, and the main problem is actually in Pakistan. I even agree with Herbert (man, that hurts to type) that our main goal for Afghanstan is to keep it from being a haven for terrorists who want to kill us. Again, I just don't think we are losing. (Fortunately for my self esteem, Herbert runs from this logic by whining that we shouldn't be dying for a corrupt Afghan government--but we aren't, you fool, we're fighting to keep Afghanistan from being a haven to attack us!) But I want to win regardless of our precise strategy or objectives. My support for our war effort doesn't depend on the government following exactly what I'd do were I in charge. And I'm comforted by the knowledge that General Petraeus is leading CENTCOM to direct the campaign in Afghanistan.

And if you still doubt whether the anti-war position on Afghanistan will be embraced by our current anti-Iraq War side, remember, Europeans don't think Afghanistan is the "good war" and never have. Their governments may support us somewhat, but Europeans are opposed to the Afghanistan War, too. And where Europeans go in anti-war thoughts, our Left follows.

The Good War is going "bad" already, proving it is immune to the magical touch of Hope and Change.

Ah, President Obama is just going to love his Leftist supporters in the next four years as they seethe in anger over "Barack Obama's war." Doesn't he know that supporting the "good war" in Afghanistan was never more than political cover for liberals to oppose the "bad war" in Iraq?

Well, if he didn't know that, he'll become painfully aware of that fact fairly soon. I'm sure the anti-war types are working on something childish to rhyme with BHO the same way they rhymed with LBJ back in the 1960s, that cradle of hope and change now viewed as a Golden Age by our Left.