The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Defeatist Peaceniks Upset That Obama Isn’t Losing Afghanistan War Fast Enough

Posted on | June 25, 2010 | 9 Comments

That’s not the headline on the Politico story, but it could be:

The president and congressional critics, long on a collision course over the war in Afghanistan, are hurtling ever faster toward each other since the ouster of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and doves on Capitol Hill are feeling a little tougher right now.
The anti-war coalition continues to be a thorn in the side of Democratic leaders, who are trying to find a way to move a war-funding bill over liberal objections and past a Republican Party unified in its opposition to using the must-pass $33 billion measure as a source of domestic spending.
War critics say Obama is missing a golden opportunity to use the McChrystal flap as an excuse to reshape his policy in Afghanistan. Instead, he’s reaffirming a policy that was shaped in large measure by McChrystal and using acclaimed Gen. David Petraeus to execute it, leaving himself little room to cast blame should things go wrong.
“He’s doubling-down,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide.

You can read the rest of that, but it’s a pretty simple story: All those Democrats who spent six years complaining that the Iraq war was a mistake because it distracted from fighting the real enemy in Afghanistan were . . . eh, lying.

Anti-war Democrats aren’t just against bad wars and, in truth, they’re not actually anti-war. They’re just anti-America.

They hate the U.S. military. Their worst nightmare is for American troops to decisively defeat the enemy. These are the people who cheered for Hanoi during the Vietnam War and they have never lost the habit of cheering for America’s enemies, which is why they love Fidel Castro and why they support Hamas in Gaza.

However, the fact that Obama is pissing off the Anti-America Caucus in Congress doesn’t mean that Obama actually knows what he’s doing. The Washington Post‘s Eugene Robinson puts it succinctly:

The good news? Nobody has to pretend anymore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal knew how to fix Afghanistan within a year. The bad news? Now we’re supposed to pretend that Gen. David Petraeus does.

Meanwhile today, at The American Spectator, John Guardiano offers a counterpoint to the beatdown on Gen. McChrystal:

It is not General McChrystal and his aides who exercised “bad judgment,” but rather the political and pundit class. They’re too thin-skinned; they don’t appreciate the importance of public dialogue and debate; and they adhere to stereotypical notions of military subordination and command and control.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: This post was inspired by catching a few minutes of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, where they highlighted the Politico story. Da Tech Guy watches “Morning Joe” almost daily and I called him to tell him about it. Da Tech Guy notes his earlier observation that for the “Morning Joe” crew “the replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus brought one line of argument, basically that it shouldn’t be used to try to win.”

MSNBC: Where Victory Is Never an Acceptable Option!

UPDATE II: Jeff Kuhner in The Washington Times:

America is heading toward a colossal defeat in Afghanistan. Unless there is a dramatic change in policy and leadership, the United States will suffer the most calamitous military setback in its history – one that will mark the end of the American moment, the loss of superpower status in the eyes of the world. . . .

Read the whole thing.

Category: Aghanistan, Military

Comments

9 Responses to “Defeatist Peaceniks Upset That Obama Isn’t Losing Afghanistan War Fast Enough”

  1. Joe
    June 25th, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

    Obama was within his rights to fire him (although he could have kept him too). I assume it was Obama’s ego, but it is his call. The good part about Petraeus is he has his own political capital and backing (much more than McChrystal). He can say what it will take to win and Obama will be in a tough place to say no.

    Afghanistan is a mess. Not of our making, we have improved the place. It was a far worse disaster before we got there. We are doing this war to not give al Qaeda a safe haven. We accomplished that six years ago and are seeking to make that change so it can last after we leave.

  2. Joe
    June 25th, 2010 @ 9:47 am

    Obama was within his rights to fire him (although he could have kept him too). I assume it was Obama’s ego, but it is his call. The good part about Petraeus is he has his own political capital and backing (much more than McChrystal). He can say what it will take to win and Obama will be in a tough place to say no.

    Afghanistan is a mess. Not of our making, we have improved the place. It was a far worse disaster before we got there. We are doing this war to not give al Qaeda a safe haven. We accomplished that six years ago and are seeking to make that change so it can last after we leave.

  3. Stacy Discovers Morning Joe and MSNBC… « DaTechguy's Blog
    June 25th, 2010 @ 10:15 am

    […] …covering this politico story and discovers they are likely not quite on-board with the whole victory thing: You can read the rest of that, but it’s a pretty simple story: All those Democrats who spent six […]

  4. Robo-Love Link Fest – Great Blogs & Hot Conservative Babes Edition | Mind-Numbed Robot
    June 25th, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

    […] life and others who I feel deserve the support just because they are incredibly awesome, as in the Robert Stacy McCain mantra of reporting; “One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut […]

  5. Old Rebel
    June 25th, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

    It’s simply not true that conservatives back the war and liberals oppose it. Consider Obama, Hillary, Lieberman, and Chris Hitchens, for example, and then look at George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Tom Fleming.

    The corrupt Karzai regime isn’t worth the life of a single American soldier. Yet more lives and money are being wasted on the Afghan sinkhole.

    And four more Americans died today.

    For what?

  6. Old Rebel
    June 25th, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

    It’s simply not true that conservatives back the war and liberals oppose it. Consider Obama, Hillary, Lieberman, and Chris Hitchens, for example, and then look at George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Tom Fleming.

    The corrupt Karzai regime isn’t worth the life of a single American soldier. Yet more lives and money are being wasted on the Afghan sinkhole.

    And four more Americans died today.

    For what?

  7. Thane Eichenauer
    June 25th, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

    As far as I can tell neither Obama nor McChrystal nor Petraeus has a solution to Afghanistan. There is no solution to be had and there is no victory that can be claimed in an occupation against native guerrilla forces.

    My position and the “dove position” has nothing about being anti military. The issue is that there is no possibility of vanquishing the enemy because the enemy isn’t a monolithic government. The US government should be so lucky as to be fighting Castro.

  8. Thane Eichenauer
    June 25th, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

    As far as I can tell neither Obama nor McChrystal nor Petraeus has a solution to Afghanistan. There is no solution to be had and there is no victory that can be claimed in an occupation against native guerrilla forces.

    My position and the “dove position” has nothing about being anti military. The issue is that there is no possibility of vanquishing the enemy because the enemy isn’t a monolithic government. The US government should be so lucky as to be fighting Castro.

  9. The WyBlog
    June 26th, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

    Domo Arigato Mr Roboto…

    Stacy McCain speaks Politico so you don’t have to. You know, if WaPo was serious about hiring a conservative writer they really should have him on speed dial….