Saturday, January 17, 2009

True Colors

The anti-war side is rapidly showing that it is against the "good" war in Afghanistan, effectively admitting that their professed support for the "real war" against terrorism in Afghanistan was just a defensive ploy while they tried to lose the "bad" war in Iraq.

Having failed in the latter "bad" war effort, they've turned on the former "good" war.

I've long figured this was the case, as I wrote in August 2006:

I've long suspected that the anti-Iraq War side here has to mute its general anti-war attitudes to avoid alienating the many Americans who support defending ourselves with force where necessary. As a nation, we aren't eager for war but we aren't pacifists. So when the American anti-Iraq War side condemns Iraq, they must couch it as a specific objection. Note how they have since 2002 claimed that Iraq is somehow a "distraction" from more important threats like hunting Osama, or confronting Iran, or figuring out what to do about North Korea, perhaps Darfur, or responding to a hurricane. Or "solving" the Palestinian issue first. Remember that objection? When pressed for specifics they can never explain how they'd use those freed up military forces, but our press corps won't insist on an answer so they get away with it.

In this light, our campaign in Afghanistan is a blessing to the American anti-Iraq War side. While they condemn Iraq for its reasons, conduct, and cost in lives and money, they shield themselves from being identified as simply pacifists by insisting they support the far less visible Afghan War. Afghanistan is the "good war" because this is the country that was complicit in 9/11.

How long before these anti-Afghan War types accuse President Obama of being a chicken hawk?

Never forget, the peace sign is just the footprint of the American chicken.