Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Free At Last!

As the anti-Iraq War coalition presses President Obama to run from Afghanistan, my predictions that they would turn on the "good war" are at least three years old (though as I wrote in that post, I'd long believed that--I just don't know if I wrote on it earlier), as I noticed the Canadian anti-Afghan war views:

Or does the Canadian anti-war side reveal what our anti-war side would say if there was no Iraq War going on?

Then, our anti-war side would have to fall back on those nebulous potential "other threats" that the anti-war side would surely be forceful in confronting if only we weren't "tied down" in Afghanistan [corrected from "Iraq"]. They can simply never support the current main war--well, not if a Republican is waging it, of course.

I was wrong about the anti-war side supporting a war waged by a Democrat, of course. As they tire of waiting for their man in the White House to lose it for them, the anti-war side is making noises in Congress and on the Internet about wanting to run away in Afghanistan, too. Of course, the excuse is that the "real problem" is in Pakistan now.

How many times can the anti-war side pull this bait-and-switch before we conclude they really just want the other side to win?

Regardless of how many of our enemies are also in Pakistan, we really do have enemies in Afghanistan. And even if you've sported one of those stylish "Already Against the Next War" bumper stickers for years just waiting for the dreaded NeoCons to launch a new war, the next war we have to win really is the Afghanistan campaign.