Afghanistan rebuttal... and other thoughts

Drbrian said...

Just because it is a tough job with a periodic setbacks, likely miscalculations and no certainty of success, does not mean we should not try. That is a false choice you have inferred upon my argument ( the whole "you can't have it both ways" logic). It is a very difficult war we are in the middle of over there. All wars are messy and never go the way the war plan is drawn up.

You agree that we needed to remove the Taliban and the Al Queda network they allowed to thrive within the Afhani borders. Then you chide the attempt at "spreading freedom and democracy" as disingenuous hyperbole. Did I miss something in between? What form of government would you like to use as a model for success? Install a "strongman"?! Surely that was tongue in cheek, right? Even if the attempt at installing democracy in Afghanistan fails due to external forces like Iran and Syria destabilizing the process, maybe those seeds of democracy come to fruition at a later date. History is often funny that way. So I don't think we have much choice other than to try to instill democracy, do we?

So even if we hypothesize for the sake of argument that it is likely that this endeavor has a fairly good chance to devolve into a chaotic mess (although I don't think that is even close to happening in Afghanistan), no matter how much resources we put into it, what choice do we have but to attempt to spread democracy as the only chance at long term success in that region? Why do you characterize the President's speeches (in which he's clearly trying to inspire the masses in these middle eastern countries to have the courage to fight for there freedom from oppression) as rhetoric and imply it is empty hyperbole? I find it troubling that you are so cynical about such a noble endeavor. And I truly mean that, which is why I try so hard to understand it. Churchill espoused many similarly high minded noble concepts on freedom during the nightly bombings of London during the darkest hours of WW2 in an attempt to keep the people's will focused on the end goal of democracy and freedom from oppression, even at great cost. It took great courage then in the face of fear to prevail. I'm not comparing the scenario's, just the idea that freedom is a very noble and vital idea we need to spread to this area of the world. And their situation is as dire as Europe's was then if they don't take the bull by the horns soon. As long as our troops have the courage and conviction to fight, and all reports are that they believe in their mission and want to complete it, I think we should allow the duly elected commander-in-chief to finish his term as he sees fit to command the troops. That is how our system works, right? Of course, we didn't go there to do that for them at great cost to us out of shear nobility.Bush sees it as the greatest (and only?) long term chance at achieving stability in that region so terrorists aren't born and indoctrinated with Islamic extremist hate to then go out into the world and kill us. Their freedom and prosperity goes hand in hand with our fight against terrorism.

So don't confuse my analysis of why this will be a long difficult struggle in this region for a long time into any admission that it was or is a mistake to try and bring Democracy to the Middle East.

It is way too easy to attack a war time president in real time for all the mistakes and setbacks anyone will have in war. Unfortunately, there is no parallel liberal universe where we only went to Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden is dead,so the terrorists decided to retire, and Kabul looks like Manhattan at Christmastime. Was that too sarcastic? :) It's just that I think that Kerry would have had a very similar military planning and execution of the war. Different civilian leadership, but the same overall plans would be put forth by the military men and carried out in roughly the same way. I find it hard to believe things would go so drastically differently, even assuming your analysis that it is a an aimless mess and complete failure, as you obviously believe. Time will tell on that score.

You say you only want to hold the administration "accountable" and would do it with any president. Yet you already believe the current administration is dishonest and irresponsible or you wouldn't say

"So, if this administration is truly the honest-talking, straight-shooting group of responsible citizens they characterize themselves to be".

So I'd like to hear the evidence of that and I'll have to take your claim of neutrality with a grain of salt till then.

You freely admit you are not a military expert, and yet you've decided that they are "failing miserably". I don't see that as a factual statement at this point in time.

Many postulate if we had the embeds reporting the progress (or lack of) in WW2 we would never have stayed in it till the end. So I prefer to give the current administration the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise. If it turns out the war was prosecuted poorly, we will all pay a price, but It's simply too early to tell from where I sit.

As a final aside (maybe we should separate this, but I have to expound on it now) I find the daily criticism of the Bush's handling of everything in the NY Times rather predictable, so I freely admit that I discount a lot of it's reportage as politically motivated. And I'm willing to bet almost all the negative reporting that leads you to believe that Afghanistan is a hopeless mess already was within the NY Times, unless you hit the liberal blogs as well?. As proof of my theory, I ask you to point out a whole lot of positive articles on the handling of our economy as we have rebounded from the recession Bush inherited and how he has now dropped the unemployment rate to all time lows in spite of the millions of illegal aliens who have come to work in this country in the last 6 years. Also all-time stock market highs. Before you say it is just the Fed policy that controls this, or it's cyclical economic behavior, remember that Clinton certainly got tons of positively glowing ink for his handling of the economy during his years in office from the Times. So how about sending me links to a few of the positive articles on Bush. There was a recent report that cited something like a 50 to 1 ratio on positive to negative reporting on the White House from the Times. I'll try to track it down. Shouldn't there be some balance in this regard from the fair, even handed newspaper you purport the Times to be? Or is Bush just completely incompetent in every aspect of the job, and we thrive economically (with no terrorist attack!) in spite of him?

But all we get on economic reportage is class warfare stuff on the widening divide of rich versus poor. Service oriented economies will create such a divide, you know, and I don't see any way to avoid this effect on the economy to some extent. But they don't address this aspect at all. Only the "greedy rich are getting richer" talk that's been their mantra forever.
Don't be afraid to voice your thoughts on Bush's motivations, because that gets to the heart of the liberal's hate for Bush. I really want to understand why people hate him so much, I really do. If you can give me concrete examples of Bush lying and decieving the American public, I want to hear it. Maybe I'll change my mind. :) But most liberals cite me innuendo and suppositions, but no hard facts or likely reasons for doing these dastardly things. We get vascillations between Bush the incompetent buffon, and the evil genius Karl Rove the master puppeteer. It's like a bad "B" movie!

Of course, the hearings to restore "accountability" that are as sure as rain starting in January will be furiously trying to link some no-bid contract to Halliburton ( the only company large enough to handle some of these projects) with a murky email from Rove directing such a contract. At least that's my best guess about how they will try to "get Bush". That's my prediction. There is a lot of payback anger within the Dems for losing 2 close elctions in a row and being forced to accept a secondary role the past 6 years. I think it will backfire at the elections unless they play it just right though. You heard it hear first!
Explain "rush to war" comment? In Afghanistan?