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):
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Sins of The Children-Brown Backs New Government Bailout While Romney and Palin Endorse McCain
Reuters reports that, in a statement defending his vote for a new government stimulus package that creates more government stimulus–cloaked under the benevolent title of the ‘jobs bill’–in the form of “subsidies for state and local construction bonds and $19.5 billion to shore up a highway-construction fund”, Senator Scott Brown explained “I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington”. Adding insult to injury, The Associated Press reports that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have both thrown their support behind Senator John McCain–seen by many as the quintessential socialist republican–in his quest for re-election. Such actions demonstrate a preference for people over principles. If we are ever to overcome our socialist past and present, and truly evolve into a free-thinking, industrious future, we must refuse to accept programs or candidates that contravene our ideals. A vote against the ‘jobs bill’ or McCain’s candidacy is not, contrary to popular belief, a show of closed-minded partisanship, rather, it is a demonstration of true political mettle.
The Palin Ploy: My Respectful Dissent to “Another Dead Horse”
Yesterday my faithful compatriot rj bemoaned the fall from glory of another Republican.? I could actually feel his heart breaking in the tone of his voice.? Why wouldn’t it be?? The past eight months have been rough for Republicans all over this country.? Instead of recovery and a renewed invigoration, we have for the most part seen an weak and unorganized party with plenty of infighting to boot with the Frum led Neo-Cons attempt to take over the GOP while the Reaganauts favor a movement back to the roots of conservatism.
The recent escapades of the?Governor of the fine state of South Carolina and now the announcement of Sarah Palin stepping down as Governor of Alaska have added to the concern of the current statue of the Grand Old Party.? Members of the party of the “Rough Rider” and “The Liberator” are beginning to feel weak in a government dominated by Progressives and in all estimations have zero voice in the grand arena.
rj’s current concern of course is that of Palin’s supposed fall from grace.? That a potential unifier or at least fresh face in politics has given in and can no longer stomach the fierceness of the battle ground that is modern politics.
I respectfully dissent.
This is a Trojan Horse if I’ve ever seen one, my friend.? I am of the position that there is a presidential campaign announcement headed our way in 12-18 months.? Do not miss the forest for the trees here.? This is truly a cunning ploy of which the fall out is the act of storing ammunition and not the destruction of her political career as the elitist media would have you believe.? Her base is that of the disenfranchised, the down and out, the every man.? The individuals sick and tired of being told how they feel and what they should believe by the Washington Beltway elite.? Those individuals who crafted a false Palin under the McCain campaign and refused to define her as an intelligent leader, and allowed her to fall victim to painting her as a ditsy pretty face.
The salt of the earth Americans are growing sick and tired of the direction the country is going, and they have zero representation.? The Progressives do not represent these people, and neither do the Neo-Cons.? These are the people that care little if a candidate hales from Blue Blood Ivy League educated status.? They desire leadership that knows of their struggle, that has raised a family outside of towers of concrete, has sweated for their keep and watched it taken away by the invisible hand of government.? These individuals are slowly beginning to rise up against the machine as evidenced in the outpouring of movements like the Tea Parties across our country.
Palin will use the animosity towards her to further establish her base for a strong following when campaigning begins in just about 18 months time.? Because the animosity towards her by the elite will be associated as animosity towards the American Every Man.? This movement can be further established with smart and ambitious grass roots, Internet based social networking plan in the line of my.barackobama.com to impress upon individuals of communities that she represents their strong Goldwater-esque convictions.
If I’m wrong, then there is either a Huckabee style talk show on Fox News waiting on her post July 29th.? I can’t take credit for that prognostication.? That belongs to Ruth Ann Harnisch.? But my conjecture remains that there is a strong possibility that this exit is simply based on a desire to spend time with family prior to the roller coaster and to build ammunition for the fight.? This is more than reasonable.
The bottom line is this: Sarah Palin is standing on the precipice of either disappearing as a footnote of the McCain campaign or having made one of the most brilliant campaign moves in political history.
-nick
