Who’s Selling Snake Oil?

In today’s “This Week” appearance, George Will hammers the president over his woeful attempts to turn the mid-term elections from being about his policies to being about the “snake oil” (the president’s words) of his opposition. Check out Jake Tapper’s introduction to the issue; the clip of the president speaking; and Will’s comments, from the beginning of the video through 1:34.

Leave Afghanistan

I know RJ will vehemently disagree with me, but here is an op-ed I wrote about leaving Afghanistan that Daily Caller was kind enough to publish:

On Monday, a former professor and I were chatting, and the war in Afghanistan came up. I have been supporting a 100% pull-out from that country- as well as Iraq- for some time now, and think that with the General McChrystal issue hitting the fan (for the record, I support the president’s acceptance of the general’s resignation), it’s as good a time as any to post about why we need to leave the country.

First, we should leave for humanitarian/ethical reasons. We are sending servicemembers to that country to die for an Afghan leader who is corrupt, and whose brother is a criminal. What is our goal over there? The Afghanistan people are, at best, a tribal people with no real central government and no willingness to even have a central government. Being there to have access to Pakistan is just not a good enough reason anymore. Secondly, to (admittedly, hesitantly) quote a front page poster at Daily Kos, the worse Afghanistan gets, the less likely we are to leave. Since when does a proper cost-benefit analysis include sending good money after bad, and since when does honoring those who have valiantly served, been injured and/or died in Afghanistan include sending more young people to die without cause?

Secondly, we should leave because the American people don’t support this war. Oh, they say they do. But as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert described in December of last year, our support is minimal. Some money or other means of assistance is sent by those affected directly or indirectly by the war (friends and family with military members overseas, etc.) and some truly patriotic Americans, but most of the nation is satisfied with rhetoric pulled from blogs, talking heads and Associated Press articles. (Oh, yeah, and they have yellow ribbons on their bumpers.) As Herbert put it,

The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. We’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than we fought in World Wars I and II combined. If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat.

Thirdly, we should leave Afghanistan because, despite the very good reasons for entering in 2001, Bush and Congress ignored Afghanistan for half a decade while focusing on Iraq. Whether or not we should have focused on Iraq is a different debate for a different time…but they failed to conduct the war in Afghanistan with efficiency, and President Obama is not improving things. Instead, as George Will pointed out this week, we have created a military for babysitting. Even with President Obama sending 30,000 troops over to the nation, we have a timetable. Since when has letting the foe know when it’s safe to come out become American policy? Obama’s mistakes are somewhat different than Bush’s…but they have the same consequences for our young people dying over there. Again, the cost-benefit analysis is not in favor of staying in Afghanistan.

Fourth, we just don’t have a clue as to what we’re doing, as pointed out by The Washington Examiner. Period. Is Karzai a good guy for us? It depends on the day. Are we trying to kill terrorists, or win the minds of the people? Um…the answer is unclear- ask again later. Is our enemy in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen or Afghanistan? I don’t think anyone really knows, despite what they may say. It could be all four. Are we going to invade Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen next, as a result?

After our conversation, my professor sent me an e-mail with the following title: “Until: 1) We decide to WIN wars again & 2) The Harvard kids also serve …this says it all.” He was referring to a recent Herbert column, in which Herbert talked about the courage to leave Afghanistan. The fact is that if we want to win wars, we should have a beginning, a middle and an end planned out. We should bring in enough troops. We should know the culture. We should not be convinced by elitists to enter a conflict- elitists whose their total involvement in war consists of debating on TV or making a profit off of the deaths of our countrymen. Pay the taxes to support the war, or do a USO tour, or encourage your child to join the military. Something. (On that note, great credit goes to people like Senator McCain and Vice-President Biden, whose children have served in post-9/11 conflicts, and especially to Senator McCain, who supports the war despite the risk to his family.)

I wasn’t alive in 1972, but my professor, my father and an increasing number of right-of-center individuals are saying the same thing- they’ve seen Afghanistan before. Of course- and it is now clichéd- it was called Vietnam, then. Since Bush took office, our debt has risen nearly 125%, with over 10% of that cost directly attributable to entering Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve lost thousands of young men and women. As much as it pains me to say it, the honorable thing to do is tactically retreat, starting tomorrow, and conduct a full pull-out from Afghanistan and Iraq, and honor our fallen by swearing to never, ever forget our first duty to the troops is to use them to protect our nation, not appease the egos and wallets that have benefited over the last nine years from our involvement in the Middle East.

My friend Tom Qualtere, who works for The Heritage Foundation, wrote an op-ed for Daily Caller back in March, and in it he said that Millennial/Generation Y Americans “are the 9/11 generation.” I agree with him, if only because the specter of 9/11 has dominated this nation’s, and our young people’s, thinking and culture since the towers fell. According to Tom, however, our duty is as follows:

But for those of us who’ve chosen a vocation on the home front, our support for them and their mission must be unambiguous and unwavering. It is time for conservatism’s 9/11 generation to fully embrace and defend the role that history has bestowed upon us and wear our hawk feathers more proudly than ever.

Tom and I disagree on many policy issues, and Afghanistan is one of them. He will undoubtedly respond to this opinion by saying we are letting the terrorists win by leaving Afghanistan. This would be the case if we just left Afghanistan (and Iraq) and forgot about the Middle East. However, when we leave, we must do so with the following assertions to the rest of the world (and our own citizenry):

1. We are going to get the government out of the way and drill for oil within our national borders, build wind farms and build nuclear power plants. No longer will we send tens of billions every year to nations that support terrorism and hate us. While I do believe we went into Afghanistan and Iraq for good and ethical reasons, the fact is that part of that reasoning was for the benefits of oil for America. Well, take away the need for overseas oil, and we can start minding our own business for a change. Moreover, many terrorist organizations will have less money with which to fund attacks against us. This will take years, of course- but better late than never, and the sooner we start the better off we will be.
2. The international community has for too long relied on our military. We have over 700 bases worldwide, and given our budget issues, this is unsustainable. If other nations- the same ones who criticize and condemn us if we don’t get involved (see Rwanda), but also if we do (see Iraq), with world affairs- want to utilize our blood and treasure, they can sign treaties and trade deals that give America a slice of the economic pie we have not asked for during our six-plus decades of world protection. Protection of other nations should be handled on a case-by-case basis, not with the assumption we will help every nation without such agreements. Supporting Kuwait in 1991, for example, was done because a) it was in our national interest, and b) because we had the ability to strike and win without a prolonged, expensive endeavor. Essentially, the cost-benefit analysis was positive.
3. Protect our borders with some of the troops we bring home, among other good immigration policies (allowing border guards to shoot; encouraging legal immigration through incentives, etc.). Terrorists will have a hard time hurting us without being able to get in. Good, effective border policy will also give us the time to better our energy policies, as mentioned above.
4. The jihadists will probably claim victory; after all, they drove out the “Great Satan,” much as they did with the Russians in the 1980s. This is a major concern, as 9/11 was the culmination of a nearly a decade’s worth of minor attacks that went unanswered by President Clinton. However, that’s where minding our own business and providing them with less money come into play, as well as the treaties I mentioned above. By minding our own business, we will blunt some of the jihadist propaganda. Secondly, without money they will have less success in attacking us in our own nation. Thirdly, should our intelligence see a threat, they can work with intelligence agencies in other nations and sign treaties and work together to deal with threats both before and as they arise. Lastly, should all else fail, we will have our own border control forces.

A clarification: I do not support an isolationist foreign policy platform, nor do I believe we have caused all of the world’s problems. The Middle East would have been a pit of peoples fighting among themselves even if America had never even sent a single dollar or troop there. However, other than supporting Israel and other allies with which we have treaties, or responding as we did after 9/11 to a direct threat on our nation, we should not be in that part of the world. The difficulty, of course- and this is why we have experts in government and the private sector- is striking the correct balance between leaving with our tail between our legs, thereby encouraging boldness by our enemies, and leaving with our heads held high without showing weakness. I think it is possible to do the latter by leaving now, though I admit the idea is balanced on a blade’s edge, and would require much delicate work.

It is difficult to say something is not worth vast amounts of effort- in this case, money and blood- put into it. It’s especially difficult when we have not won a major military conflict (except in 1991) since World War II. However, pride is only useful if those with the pride (i.e. politicians, think tank observers, etc.) are in the conflicts or are otherwise directly affected. Otherwise, the consequences of the pride are simply foisted onto those patriotic Americans who die or are maimed as a direct result of the pride. The delicate balance necessary to leave Afghanistan without handing a public relations boon to our terrorist enemies is an important step in owning up to the mistakes pride have bought us in the War on Terror.

*Originally published at DailyCaller.com.

Obama’s Iran Hostage Crisis & Other Issues

So, I know I’m a bit too much of a fan of George Will, but he does a bang-up job in a couple of clips today’s “This Week” appearance. The video is below, as well as an outline of the Will statements:

1. Moderator Jake Tapper asks a question about the oil spill at 1:05, and Will makes two points: first, that Obama is being unfairly blamed for the oil spill, but secondly that because of the grandoise fashion of Obama’s presidency- and the cult of Washington-centered liberal policies- competency of Washington is being questioned.

2. At 6:00, Will says he thinks the oil spill is not President Obama’s Katrina…it’s his Iranian hostage crisis. This is a pretty good analogy, especially after Will explains what he means by it, and perhaps it’s more accurate than the Katrina analogy.

3. At 10:40, Will points out that for “people of Matt’s son’s generation” (Matthew Dowd, a former Bush advisor who was on the Roundtable), being gay is like being left-handed. It’s just not that interesting. He points out that “the case is over,” and when asked a follow-up question by Tapper about the Congressional Republican opposition to lifting DADT, despite the (as Tapper pointed) vast support for lifting the policy among Americans overall; conservatives; white evangelicals; and others…Will simply said “They’re not being very intelligent.”

I would point out, for what it’s worth, regarding DADT, that political intelligence and doing what’s right don’t always go hand-in-hand. Personally, I don’t care what the average American thinks about DADT, simply because most of them haven’t served and don’t understand how the military works, especially military efficiency. What is significant is that a) our international allies, including Great Britain and Israel, have lifted similar policies, b) a majority of military service members support lifting DADT, and c) a number of current military leaders support lifting the ban (though that is somewhat countered by the many retired military leaders who oppose lifting it).

Personally, I have not seen enough evidence to support lifting DADT as of yet, though the aforementioned points have softened my opposition to it. I look forward to seeing enough evidence to lift it, because I recognize it is a discriminatory policy and we have kicked over 13,000 members of the military out since 1993, an exorbantly expensive process. (Full disclosure: I voice my opinion on DADT as a civilian, not as a member of the Army National Guard. Furthermore, I have never been deployed to an active duty station as part of my service.)

At any rate, enjoy the video below.

RNC Chair Michael Steele Gets Hit From All Sides

The last couple of days have not been good for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. A number of figures have hammered him, and The Corner’s Robert Costa has a pretty good rundown of some of the more prominent ones:

In case you missed it on Sunday, George Will had some tough words for Michael Steele, the embattled RNC chairman: “He has fundamentally misconstrued his job, which is to be the face and the ideological spokesman for the Republican party.”

“There are a lot of people who do that,” Will said, “but the best party chairmen are like major league umpires. If, at the end of the game, they go back into the dressing room and no one has noticed them, they’ve done their job brilliantly. They strive for anonymous perfection, and that should be the role of the party chairman. The best Republican party chairmen — Ray Bliss of Ohio, who rebuilt the party after the Goldwater meltdown, Bill Brock, former senator from Tennessee, who built the party up on the eve of the Reagan triumph — they were perfectly anonymous. And I’m not sure that this man has understood that.”

Steele doesn’t appear to have taken Will’s advice. Earlier today, he appeared on Good Morning America and told George Stephanopoulos that he has less room for error as chairman due to his race. “The honest answer is yes,” Steele said. “It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do . . . That’s just the reality of it . . . My view on politics is much more grassroots-oriented. It’s not old-boy network oriented. I tend to come at it a little bit stronger, a little more streetwise if you will. That rubs some feathers the wrong way.”

Robert Gibbs, of course, had a quick comeback at today’s morning meeting with reporters. “I think that is a fairly silly comment to make,” he said. “I think Michael Steele’s problem isn’t the race card; it’s the credit card.”

I think Dan Amira at New York has it right: “Steele probably blew a chance to cool this down.” Besides, as Ben Smith notes, “Jonathan Martin made a pretty convincing case a few months ago that, in some sense, the reverse is true within a Republican party that’s almost entirely without prominent African-American officials.”

You can see the Will comments here, as well as the follow-up comments by another Roundtable contributor who explains what the job of an RNC chair is…and how Steele is not doing that job. Furthering the damage, this morning Politico reported that the top RNC fundraiser is ditching the organization, which is sure to bring more pressure to bear to fire Steele. However, I think the most damaging remark came from Gibbs- when the Democratic White House Press Secretary is getting quoted favorably, and being laughed with and not at, by conservatives against another right-of-center leader, the RNC chair is in trouble.

I saw part of Steele’s comments this morning on ABC, and while I missed his comment about being black, this is not the first time he has brought race into the debate. The fact is that he has made the RNC look ridiculous throughout his tenure, and while it has been proven this strip club fiasco is not his fault, it’s emblematic of the inept leadership he brings to the table. Blaming others just  makes it worse.

Personally, I think getting rid of Steele would have zero impact on what few Republican race relations we have, and bringing in a dynamic person like former governor Sarah Palin would not only inspire fundraising, it would bring in far more fundraising than we might (or might not) lose by ridding ourselves of a bad RNC chair, no matter what his skin color is. It would also free Steele to travel around the country, speaking on behalf of candidates, something he did well with in 2008, when he was a McCain surrogate. Additionally, we have other minority candidates we can support for leadership positions, if we must look at race. (Which, given it’s politics, we must.)

Oh, and the other good thing about bringing Palin in? It would likely prevent her from running for president. An added bonus.

George Will Gives Great CPAC Speech

Thanks to AllahPundit for this three-part speech.

Sunday Shows

While I cannot watch all of the Sunday shows due to my limited omnipresence, I was able to catch This Week on ABC with George Will, Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and special guest Roger Ailes of Fox News.  (This was after watching a rare Power Panel on Fox News Sunday which contained both William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer).  I must say, I was impressed with Roger Ailes’ ability to fire back at the other side of the table when they sniped, which is an action George WIll rarely does, for good reason I might add.  It was nice when Huffington accused the GOP of using “paranoid politics” and anger to energize a base that ended up helping Sen. Scott Brown win his elections, to have Ailes fire back with his own anecdote about Huffington Posts’ columns comparing Ailes to J Edgar Hoover and other similar snarky posts.  Point.  Ailes. 

The roundtable played out like a fireworks show: a pop here, glittering showers of fire and lights there before subsiding into monotone.  The end was a magnificent display, however, with Ailes calling them all out around the table, and making ABC regret extending him an invitation in the first place.  Liberal tweeters and bloggers alike are answering Ailes’ points in typical ad hominem fashion:

Roger Ailes’ doctor wants him to lose 100 pounds. #abcnews #thisweek

	RT @KatrinaNation: Paul Krugman terrific on ABC “This week”on dysfunctional Senate. Priceless: his face listening to Roger Ailes blathering

The Heritage Foundation Bloggers Briefing

Rob Bluey, The Director of Online Strategy for The Heritage Foundation, was kind enough to invite me to the weekly Bloggers Briefing held at The Heritage Foundation every Tuesday. Today’s speaker was Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), a leading conservative in the House and the first Member of Congress to have a blog, which can be seen here.

Below are my takes from the event:

1. I met a number of interesting people, including Dan Kotman, Press Secretary for American Solutions and Steve Johnston, Associate Director of New Media for the office of the Republican Whip. I also met bloggers from Think Progress and RedState, and managed to give my card for www.thelobbyist.net to all of these people.

2. Pence spoke and, as always, was excellent (this is the third time since October I have heard him speak in person). He turned down the opportunity to run for the Senate this year, and he said it was because he wanted to lead a “conservative majority” in retaking the House in 2010. When asked if he wanted to run for President in 2012, Pence said of course he did (as he said, “Isn’t that the American Dream?), but that it would depend on the time and circumstances. He also said he was staying because he felt it was his “duty.”

3. The Think Progress blogger- a very brave young man, showing his face and speaking up, I might add- asked Pence about the Citizens United vs. FEC decision by the Supreme Court last week. In short, Pence made two points: first, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” means just that. Secondly, he said he agreed with the great conservative writer George Will, in that transparency was the issue at hand, not who can and cannot have freedom of speech. He said he would have no problem with a requirement that all Members of Congress should have to put received funds on their websites at the end of every day.

One thing Pence avoided answering by sticking to the transparency and freedom arguments was the Think Progress blogger’s second question, which was what did Pence think of the ramifications of the SCOTUS decision regarding international funding of campaigns. Pence made reference to the Democrats having to pay back such funding in the 1990s, said foreign funds should not have influence on our elections…and then never really answered the question any further.

4. I managed to put a plug in for www.rightosphere.com. A CATO blogger sitting next to me immediately began asking me about www.Race42012.com, which he said he enjoyed reading.

5. I asked Pence two questions. The first was would he prefer a Republican majority in the House or a conservative majority? He stated that he believed the new conservative majority would be made up of a new generation of leadership in Washington, DC, but never answered the real question I had, which was the difference between conservatives and Republicans.

The second question was what would a new conservative majority in 2011 push for their first step in transparency. While he never directly answered the question, he did reference negotiating bills in front of the public and a couple of other basic points that are slipping my mind at the moment.

6. Four excellent quotes from Pence:

A. On the expected move by President Obama to try to freeze billions of dollars over three years: “I never met a spending freeze I didn’t like.” Pence was also asked when he had first heard about this freeze proposal, and said it was in December, when Republicans recommended it to President Obama at a jobs summit. 

B. “Any gesture at fiscal sanity would be welcome.” Pence said , however, that Republicans would compare that proposed freeze to the laundry list of expected spending programs in tomorrow’s State of the Union speech. 

C. “This isn’t anymore about debates about actuarial perfection – this is about what kind of country we are.” Possibly the best quote of his 50-minute presentation (including Q & A). Pence made the point that the bailout in 2008, the stimulus from 2009, the takeover of the private industry etc. by the government was about who we are as a country regarding the role and size of government, as well as regarding personal responsibility. Regarding the latter, Pence was almost entirely directing his comments at Wall Street.

D. Paraphrased: “Two things have happened [since I came to Washington in 2000]. My opinion of national government has gone down and my opinion of the American people has gone up.”

*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

Harry’s Situation…

In the episode of the FX show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia called “The Gang Goes Jihad,” the three guys who own the Philadelphia bar come face-to-face with a man who just moved from Israel and had bought land that included a portion of their establishment.  Throughout the episode, the three characters banter over the proper use of the term Jew.  At one point they T.P. the man’s building, during which this exchange occurs:

“That jew’s in for a hell of a lot of work.”

“Wow, wow, cool it man.”

“What? What are you talking about?”

“Dude, you just dropped a hard J.”

“No man, he is of Jewish descent and that is a lot of toilet paper. That is going to take a lot of time to clean up. I was thinking bout the context the whole time.”

 

Suffice to say, I love this show.  But who needs to fork over the extra money to get FX Network when you can watch similar debates occur on the local news?  It’s one thing to have three mentally unstable friends squabble over political correctness; how about a twenty three year Senator, and current Senate Majority leader demonstrating his inability to decide whether or not to use the out-dated term negro?  In case you have been living with Patrick Star under a rock this past week, here is what Senator Reid is quoted in a new Mark Halperin book, Game Change:

            “He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”

 

The words could have come straight out of Archibald Bunker’s mouth.  What is it that has the country so enveloped in this demonstration of ignorance?  Ironically enough, Sen. Reid was attempting to compliment the future President of the United States.  Instead people are up in arms.  If we dissect the statement, we can see that there are distinct parts that probably incite more reaction than others.  In what context is the term Negro acceptable?  None (and the same goes for you Rush, even though you used it in a parody that ended up making fun of just this situation).  Is it true that lighter-skinned African Americans tend to be more influential, more popular, and more electable in society than those who are darker?  Sadly this seems to be the case in many situations, but I cannot pretend to be able to comment on the use of such racially charged language and how blacks feel about it truly, in their heart of hearts.  Perhaps we should look at what he meant by “Negro dialect,” what does he mean there?  Surely he demonstrated that he is out of touch with America because most people refer to ‘Ebonics’ or ‘street-talk’ when they are trying to make a similar point.  Nobody is unaware of either of these terms, and his comment just shows his ignorance to popular culture as well as manners. 

There is a lot to analyze there; but there seems to be something missing that is causing such turbulence in the souls of many Americans.  For me, it’s not what was said on the surface, as much as it is what was said without being said.  How can we use this black man to our advantage?  He is black, which is useful; he ‘is articulate,’ which is useful; he can turn his ‘blackness on and off;’ which is useful; in the end, this black man is useful and will succeed for us because he is black how we want him to be, but not black when we need him to be.  THAT my friends, is racism.  There seems to be a disconnect between people who are viewing these comments and only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and those of us who see the rest of the iceberg plummeting miles into the ocean.

This was seen on Sunday, when I watched with gaping mouth, as Liz Cheney and George Will clashed over this point.  Mr. Will seems to be looking at the comments on a surface level, Ms. Cheney on the deeper level.  In order to be completely forthcoming, I must fess up to a deep admiration to both people (and NONE of the others around the table).  I was sad to see the two fight, and sad to differ from George Will, again.  However, I think those African Americans who are tired of feeling like pawns in a political game; whether it’s an effort to win voting blocks in cities with programs that have proven to be detrimental to the black family and communities, or putting up candidates that fit a litmus test for winning and avoiding the Bradley Effect.  This is not a case of Republican versus Democrat, this is a demonstration of a disgusting ends justifies the means mentality for domestic politics, and should be condemned as such. 

-rj

Stimulus Fail, Part 2 (Part 3? 4?)

The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway takes it away with this one:

“A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.”

Later: “The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.”

Lastly: “Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion.”

What a surprise- you mean to tell me the stimulus is failing again? I’m shocked. Really. (Okay, not really.)

This is really bad, for four reasons: first, since a majority of public employees are members of unions, the money is going to sources of voting power for Democrats as opposed to helping all Americans (assuming, of course, it did help, which is doubtful). Secondly, the money was not distributed for efficienty of employment- even though that was its selling point. Thirdly, the money was spread by two departments not Congress, which means either those departments are biased (unlikely) or they are following a formula, as the study Hemingway quotes concludes, and that means the formula is skewed. Fourth, this is almost exactly 20% of the $770 billion approved by Congress, and it’s been ten months or so since it was approved.

George Will called it- “Which suggests that Stimulus II is…primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs — those of Democratic members of the House and Senate.”

Operation: Just Cause

In December of 1989, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Senior for the liberals who do not know the proper application of a generational?suffix) sent the XVII Airborne Corps, Joint Special Operations Command and numerous other Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units into the country of Panama.? The operation was launched in an effort by then-President Bush to depose of Manuel Noriega (the de facto leader of the Panamanian government at the time) and rescue Americans who had been trapped in the country during those turbulent times.? The operation was named Operation Just Cause, leaving some critics of the engagement to quip that the operation’s name was the only argument H.W. Bush had to justify the action (I will leave the conspiracy theories about Skulls and Bones, Mena Airport, Bush, the CIA and aliens out for the sake of time, much to the chagrin of Alex Jones supporters).

What makes a war “just”?? Surely this is a topic that has been debated and mulled over for as long as men have been around on this earth (because women do not go to war, of course; war is a bi-product if irrational manliness).? Can anyone truly justify a war to every one’s liking?? Is the nature of the state to do what is right for the population of that state, no matter what that means for other states (as the term state is understood post-Machiavelli) as we see with the realists?? Or can a state only be justified in going to war if such an engagement is for the benefit of humanity as a whole (by asking “pretty please” from the UN)?? Then again, it was once said that “those who invoke humanity on their side mean to cheat” (Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political).?

Apparently, Americans are having a sort of crisis of conscience.? According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, only 50% percent of our fellow countrymen and women feel that the War in Afghanistan is a “Just” war.? This goes along with the Quinnipiac University poll that came out about a week and a half ago, which nearly reaches the exact same conclusion.? Support for the war in the first year preceding the September 11th attacks of 2001 was close to near unanimous approval, with Gallup showing 89-93% stating that Afghanistan was not a mistake in January of 2002.? So it appears that Americans (Democrats and Republicans mind you) are waning on their support for a war that they felt was necessary in 2001 and 2002.? What has changed?

If the Afghan War was justified then, what makes it less so now?? Surely we are there for the same reason, since we did not go over and overthrow the Taliban and then leave only to return as “occupiers”.? What is it that makes this war “unjust” then?? What is “justice” to these people who?have decided that it is no more than a mere term to be thrown around in the height of passion following an attack on 3,000 innocent people?? Was it only then just because we went in and overthrew a tyrannical regime that was directly tied to forces responsible for bloodshed on our own soil?? Now is it “unjust” solely for the reason that we are being told by the news and liberal (and libertarian and some conservative) influences that we have overstayed our welcome?? Which is the more justified action: going in and sacking the regime of a country to leave it in anarchy and decay; or staying and building it up to the point that their government can run effectively and more justly than before?? Who are the 21% of voters that have obtained this retroactive prescience? and decided they are against it after they were for it?? I can understand those people who were against it from the beginning, and that is because they feel that no war is ever justified.? They should be acknowledged and applauded for their principled stand, but let us not forget the ignorance that must be evident in such a dogmatic stance.?

I must admit that it is polls like these that create a feeling of futility in the pit of my stomach.? Perhaps a majority of Americans should not be asked a question about wars and their relation to justice until they better understand what justice is.? The slow decay of support for this necessary war is a sad barometer of the fortitude possessed by the American people to support the men and women overseas, their families at home, and the mission we sent them to do eight years ago.? In the end, those 50% of Americans who now question the mission and its necessity, are not doing those soldiers or their families justice.?

-rj

Next Page »