And here we have two charges in one article that will be used to crown Afghanistan the anti-war movement's new "bad war."
One, as Iraq was always described without even looking at polling numbers, Afghanistan is now the "increasingly unpopular" war:
The Pentagon is pouring millions of dollars into equipment and training for its smaller partner nations in the Afghanistan war, a new effort that could encourage some countries not to abandon the increasingly unpopular conflict.
The war in Afghanistan is not, at least here, increasingly unpopular. But the AP style guide probably insists that any fight America is in that lasts longer than three months be termed "increasingly unpopular."
And the more subtle point, also like in Iraq, is that our allies in Afghanistan are just the "coalition of the bribed," held in place only because of lavish American aid. And I won't even go into the ridiculous notion that George W. Bush alienated allies and that President Obama would repair our frayed relations. If that is the case, why aren't our allies falling over themselves to offer help without subsidies?
The fact is that it is normal to use money to leverage allied troops to fight an enemy. That was the whole basis of Britain's strategy in the Napoleonic Wars--subsidize continental enemies of France to fight and put armies into the field.
Some on the left side of the aisle will continue to support President Obama on the war even though they's likely oppose it if Bush was still in charge. But others in the anti-Iraq War movement will just change the names on their signs and get out there to protest Afghanistan.
And then there will those caught in the logical dilemma of being an anti-war Obama supporter. That's what I'm looking forward to seeing.
