It speaks to his warped analysis that you have to get to the second page before you actually get past the ranting about Iraq to the part about hoping Karzai ejects us from Afghanistan:
Just as al-Maliki forced us to do the right thing, we should allow Karzai to take control of his country as soon as he wants.
One, is this no longer the "good war?" Just wondering. Actually, I've long known that the "good" war would become "bad." So Korb arguing for retreat is no shock.
But let's take a tour of Korb's idiocy.
One, there really should be a statute of limitations on Korb noting that he worked in Reagan's Department of Defense. Korb wouldn't get that job with his post-Reagan work, that's for sure.
Then there is the part about how we couldn't end the Korean and Vietnam wars without additional bloodshed.
On Korea, I'm shocked that one of only two wars bully blessed by the United Nations doesn't get more respect from Korb. The only way to end that war sooner was to go on offense and push the Chinese out of North Korea or just give in to the Chinese. In the end, we at least defended South Korea which, do not forget, was the original purpose of our intervention after North Korea invaded the south.
As for Vietnam, calling it a lost war that we couldn't bring ourselves to admit was lost has to ignore the fact that we did in fact successfully defend South Vietnam, destroying the Viet Cong as a force capable of defeating the Saigon government and creating a South Vietnamese army capable of defending themselves with American air and logistics support. When our Congress cut off that support, a conventional North Vietnamese mechanized army was able to conquer South Vietnam.
On Iraq, Korb calls it mindless and needless. Our Congress, which included a Senate controlled by the Democrats and a House controlled by the Republicans, thought otherwise in their declaration of war, I'd like to remind you. People like Korb ignore a lot of recent history to condemn Bush on the Iraq War.
Oh, and this part is rich:
Many supporters of the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq assumed that sometime in 2011 al-Maliki would see the light and allow us to keep a residual force in Iraq after 2011, but, despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, he never came around.
Regime change for Iraq was the law of our land (during the Clinton administration), so what is Korb's notion of defeating Saddam? And does he regret the good that has come from getting rid of an enemy regime that brutalize and murdered his own people (mass graves anyone?), threatened the region, supported terrorists, and which would eventually have re-acquired weapons of mass destruction? Shall we try to give Iraq back to the Baathists who might want to get out of Syria now to atone for our victory?
And the "occupation" Korb speaks of consisted of helping the government of post-Saddam Iraq defeat former regime elements, Iranian-backed Shia death squads, local jihadis, and al Qaeda suicide bombers who flooded into Iraq via Syria as al Qaeda made Iraq their main front in their war against us.
And yes, I assumed Maliki and all other factions would want US forces around after last year. And from what I read they did. It is a gross distortion of the record to say that we did not get an agreement "despite the best efforts" of Obama! He didn't try very hard and was happy to put the blame on Maliki rather than do what he needed to do to defend what we gained in Iraq. I don't care if Korb essentially wants to re-debate the question of going to war with Iraq. We did. We won. You want to argue that the war wasn't worth the cost? It's a free country.
But why is it better to expend the relatively small effort to defend what we achieved at the price we paid? Is justifying opposition to destroying the Saddam region so important that you welcome the abandonment of the Iraqi government and its defeat? Of course, as Vietnam shows, the Left will simply deny responsibility and insist Iraq was unwinnable all along. I'll admit that if they are in charge of our Iraq policy, that may very well be true.
And arguing that Maliki could not allow our troops to operate with immunity ignores that we could have found a way to get an agreement--as we have for decades around the world--that satisfied Maliki's objections while protecting our troops from harassment by Iranian-influenced judges. Again, Obama wanted to fail and he did. He just wanted the blame placed on Maliki. Amazingly, Korb goes beyond just fixing the blame to arguing Maliki did us a favor!
And then we get to some serious bull:
In arguing that, as a condition for NATO and U.S. troops remaining after 2014, the troops immediately cease night raids, pull out of villages and withdraw to their bases, Karzai is not merely reacting to recent incidents like the burning of the Quran by American soldiers and the killing of 16 civilians, allegedly by an American soldier, and the collateral damage continually caused by night raids. Rather, Karzai is motivated by the same concerns as al-Maliki. As president of Afghanistan, he wants to control what happens in his country, something the majority of his people want now, rather than in two years.
Really. The man spouts idiocy. The burning of Korans was a mistake and while offensive to Moslems, the Korans themselves were defaced by Taliban prisoners and the Taliban engineered the violence as a tactic in the war to discourage Westerners--like Korb. Although Korb is pre-discouraged, I'll wager, and just likes an additional excuse to run. (UPDATE: And Iran's hand, as it usually is when we face enemies, was involved in that engineered response rather than being a simple and natural reaction to an honest mistake flowing from Taliban defacement of Korans as Korb asserts.)
The issue of night raids isn't a sovereignty or collateral damage issue. They are among our most effective tactics and continuing corruption in the Afghan government allows the Taliban to influence the Afghan government to insist publicly that the raids stop. If we hold our ground, they won't be stopped because Afghan government people know they need us to avoid being defeated. The killing by an American soldier is a problem but isn't a reason to retreat unless you just want an excuse to run. We've had darned few incidents like that while the enemy routinely slaughters civilians as policy.
Let's continue the BS-fest:
We have achieved our primary objectives of killing Osama bin Laden and decimating the leadership of Al Qaeda. No matter how long we stay, we cannot control the future of Afghanistan; in the final analysis, it is up to them. Moreover, the Afghans increasingly resent our presence, as evidenced by the fact that one out of every five NATO troops killed this year was killed by Afghan police or army forces (“green on blue” incidents).
No. Our primary objective was not to kill bin Laden and his top lieutenants. Those are means to reach our objective which is to prevent Afghanistan from being a haven for jihadis to wage war on us the way they did on 9/11. Oh, and by the way, we broke the back of al Qaeda in Iraq and not in Afghanistan. The battle in Afghanistan is more about the Taliban who would shield al Qaeda--again and under new leadership--if we lose the war there.
And no, "green on blue" incidents do not indicate Afghans want us out. The vast majority of incidents are due to personal issues and lack of anger management skills in that violent society and not from pro-Taliban sympathies. Gee, with a lot more Coalition troops working side-by-side with a lot more Afghan security forces, why would incidents like that be higher now? Doofus.
And then Korb wraps it up with self-contradictory BS:
These steps would allow our troops to come home with the dignity they deserve and put the responsibility for military operations that result in collateral damage on the Afghan government, where it belongs. Moreover, it will increase our chances of getting the Afghan government to allow us to maintain a small military presence after 2014, which we can use to help prevent Al Qaeda from returning and Afghanistan from destabilizing the region.
What dignity is there is retreating and risking loss? Our troops and their families deserve the dignity of having the opportunity to defend our nation from actual threats to our security and very lives. And our people deserve a war plan that defends us. Korb and his ilk may enjoy defeat, but better Americans than he'll ever be prefer to win, and understand we must win or we'll lose.
And if we pull out our troops form the fight now as Korb suggests, how does he think Karzai will agree to our troops staying to launch night raids and air strikes to help prevent al Qaeda from returning? What? Korb doesn't think that our standard tactics that he thinks are reason to leave would be needed to stop al Qaeda? Will our special forces sneak into al Qaeda compounds and slap COEXIST bumper stickers on their car bombs to shame them into behaving? Lord, what an idiot.
Further, isn't it interesting that Korb doesn't care if more Afghans die because less capable Afghans do the night raids--just that the blame be obviously on them? But you know that we will still be blamed by the Left as we are blamed for any bad actions by any ally anywhere in the world.
And one last question. If it was so good for us to get our of Iraq altogether, why isn't it equally good to get out of Afghanistan altogether? Won't even a smaller presence as Korb says he wants offend Afghans?
But of course, you just have to give Korb time. Pretending right now that he really just wants to fight more effectively with a smaller and more focused force is just a tactic to get us running. Once we have given up trying to win, he'll write about the need--and wisdom--of pulling our small force out of Afghanistan altogether. If he's really lucky he'll get the dignity of seeing our last personnel pulled out by helicopter from some final outpost's roof. Then all he has to do is write about how inevitable our defeat was all along.
Korb couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. He's no defense analyst. He just wraps up justification for retreat in arguments that can be defended as not retreating.
UPDATE: Wait. What?
Foreign Minister Zalmay Rasool said on Thursday Afghanistan would not be used as a launch pad for U.S. drones attacks on neighboring countries after NATO combat forces leave by the end of 2014.
"Afghan soil will not be used against any country in the region," Rasool told Al Jazeera television when asked if Washington would be allowed to launch drone strikes against Pakistan after the troops' withdrawal.
Are you trying to tell me that Korb's deep and nuanced plan for retreating out of Afghanistan won't include his pause in running to keep a small American force that will resist al Qaeda attempts to return? Who could have seen that coming?
Victory and not calibrating how far we can run away should be our priority.
