Early in 2007, as the American presidential campaign started to gather momentum, critics of Pres. George W. Bush’s War on Terror invented a scheme that allowed them to oppose the administration’s strategy while dodging charges of appeasement. Under that scheme, Iraq was presented as “the bad war” or, according to Sen. Barack Obama, “the wrong war, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place.” In contrast, Afghanistan was presented as “the good war,” the “just war,” or even “the necessary war.”
Read the rest, by all means.
I said much the same thing in summer 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.
What can I say? I saw it coming.
So as Iraq quiets down and too few Americans die there to inspire the anti-war crowd, the Aghanistan Campaign will draw their ire. Watch for these new anti-Afghanistan War types to start talking about the need to conserve our forces to intervene in Darfur. Or maybe Zimbabwe. Possibly Burma. And there's always the Palestinian issue to send a thrill up their legs.
The specifics won't actually matter, since the anti-Afghanistan War side will argue for action elsewhere only to get us to lose the war in Afghanistan. The "real" threat we need to prepare for will only be a prop in their perpetual quest for a war to oppose and lose, in order to get that Vietnam Protest Buzz back again.
