But what really cracks me up is this bit:
There are very few true wars of necessity. The Civil War was one; World War II was another. When Mullah Omar refused to give up Osama bin Laden, a war in Afghanistan became necessary. But then the war changed character, and the nature of the adversary changed as well. A war against Islamic terrorism, in some form, remains necessary. But the war in Afghanistan does not.
Really? Why was the Civil War a war of necessity? The North could have let the South go. Lots of regions secede from the dominant part of a country. Why couldn't it have been peaceful with the two new countries friends or allies? Does slavery make it seem necessary? So, was the Union supposed to wage war on Brazil, too? Why just free the slaves in the South? And what of de facto slavery in other parts of the world? Eventually, slavery would have ended in the South. Hundreds of thousands of dead was realy necessary to end slavery sooner rather than later without bloodshed?
And World War II was necessary? Why? We were to send American boys to a continent with a history of bloody violence and constant warfare just because one more European wanted to conquer Europe? Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, after all. Why strengthen one thug to defeat another thug? And what about that War to End All Wars thing? Didn't that show the futility of intervening in European affairs? Why not let the Europeans sort it out themselves?
And was Italy really a threat to America? Come on!
Sure, you can say that at the very least Japan deserved our wrath, given Pearl Harbor. But wouldn't it have been better to leave Asia for the Asians? Didn't we "provoke" the attack by our embargo of oil and steel? Who were we--imperialists in the Philippines--to judge Japan. Heck, wasn't part of their conquest just taking France's colonies?
And despite Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippines and Guam and Wake, shouldn't we have focused on a "proportional" response? Did we really need to wipe out the Japanese military, strangle their economy with submarine warfare, and bomb two of their cities with atomic weapons? All that was "necessary?" Shouldn't we have fixated more on understanding why they hated us?
But Afghanistan is not necessary, according to that author. No worries about freeing Afghans from Taliban oppression nearly as bad as slavery. No worries about the Taliban--who hosted al Qaeda--regaining power. No worries about al Qaeda reestablishing a sanctuary. No worries about Afghanistan becoming a rear area for Taliban to undermine Pakistan's government and possibly leading to a nuclear war with India. And no worry about Pakistan's government supporting the Taliban, and starting the whole jihadi problem again, putting our homeland at risk needlessly?
An unnecessary analyst is what he is. We never run short of people who rationalize retreating from our enemies and hoping for the best.
