One of the more troubling reactions from the left that I saw during President Obama's speech about our Afghanistan policy was this utter and absolute nonsense that Obama was somehow invoking the spirit of George W. Bush by discussing our Afghan strategy and 9/11.
I dunno, maybe its due to years and years of Rudy Giuliani's noun-verb construction or the simplistic, numb language of George W. Bush beating the common sense out of our ears, but it is as clear as can be that the reason we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11. The connection of Afghanistan to 9/11 is legions away from the made-up Iraq to 9/11 connection. Afghanistan and 9/11 are as linked for all time as closely as Tokyo is connected to December 7, 1941.
We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.
Again, these things are clear. Not a single characterization of them by President Obama deviated from what we all saw.
I supported Obama for many reasons, but for me, personally, the primary reason was that George W. Bush failed to fight the war against terrorism -- specifically the Al Qaeda network -- in any competent manner. Al Qaeda's stated desire to hurt and cripple the country -- stated time and again by Bin Laden and his lieutenants -- demands a strong and clear response from us. Basically from the standoff at Tora Bora until now, the response to this challenge has been mush.
It makes me feel weird, but in this instance I see many on the left absolutely playing to the stereotypes of the right. If we simply withdraw, this does not keep us safer. Just because George W. Bush royally screwed up as commander-in-chief, it doesn't mean that America never fights again. Afghanistan isn't Iraq. This isn't about imaginary weapons of mass destruction, or a terror "connection" that's the fevered dream of a hack Weekly Standard writer. Suicide bombers hit in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania directly based on the orders and finances of the people we're after in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border region.
I am not someone who is a kneejerk supporter of war and military action, but I feel that when we or our allies are under threat or have been attacked, we often need to respond militarily with a clear set of stated goals and an exit plan. The whole reason I didn't support the war in Iraq but support the war in Afghanistan is based on how each conflict meets the test.
Obama made great pains to point out that for the war party on the right that this was not a blank check, this would not be an echo of that ridiculous Iraq plan Bush put out that just said "Victory!" on every page. In order to fight war, Obama has made clear that he seeks to emulate the successful strategies of Presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt. We aren't increasing troop strength in Afghanistan to satisfy John McCain or Charles Krauthammer. We're doing it in order to finish the crap job of the President they supported for almost a decade.
If you don't support increasing the amount of troops, that is a fine and patriotic position to have -- though I vehemently disagree with it -- but folks on the left have got to quit rewriting history by pretending Obama is somehow suddenly a hawk on the Afghanistan situation. Similarly, the connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan isn't simply the rhetorical flourish of a leader, but stuff that actually exists. Those making honest arguments in opposition to the President's policy should adhere to the reality-based school of argument.
I think the President spoke to us as adults about the single biggest security threat to the country, an issue on par with the economy in relation to its importance (an economic recovery is no good if we don't have our way of life). I think he made, finally, a clear case about this threat and our solution to it that he plans to implement. I think at the end of the day this is how to clean up the mess left for us by the previous administration, while also doing what is in our power to defend ourselves and our allies.
Oliver Willis blogs daily at OliverWillis.com
Follow Oliver Willis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/owillis
There are some interesting comments in above site and a map which illustrates the proximity of Afghanistan to its neighbors as well as some of the geopolitical issues that should make any student of international affairs ponder critical questions that lie ahead for the region. President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops is based on complex issues and I believe it was a decision that had the support of many analysts, from all political persuasions, who factored in multiple issues not only of US security but also the often more obtuse issues like regional projections (epidemic destabilization from an Afghanistan political vacuum which might well provoke India, China, Russia et al in protecting their own stability and perceived well being).
My main point is that for many of us (not a small percentage but perhaps at least half of Obama supporters) we weren't against Shrubie because of his performance. We were against the right wing because of their morals, ethics and what their behavior was costing humanity.
There are too many points to list here and they really need to be a multi volume set of big books, but I generally am of the opinion that that clan of people were genuinely eee-veee-eye-elle. I am not religious, so take that with a grain of salt, but left unchecked, the previous regime would have cost the world dearly - a price much higher than what the people we were supposedly fighting were trying to do to us.
This was not e v i l ; hell is better organized.
Anti Gay + Pro War + Pro Big Business (Goldman Bonuses) = Might as well voted for a Republican.
So far, the only real "change" that I can "believe in" is seeing Obama himself changing...morphing right before our eyes into the opposite of everything he convinced us he stood for... could he be a neocon in disguise....? (only thing is the disguise is falling off.)
You didn't know he promised to take the war into Pakistan if necessary? It's not Obama's fault you weren't listening!!
No kidding. If you knew anything about anything, much less anything about Iraq or Afghanistan, you would recognize the real difference, in that the topographical layout of Afghanistan complicates the ability to wage a counterinsurgency campaign, while the lack of infrastructure inhibits the ability to administer the country through any cohesive governing body. Furthermore, staying in Afghanistan only inhances the TAliban's ability to stir up trouble across the border in Pakistan, and, last but not least, jsut because one utilizes discretion in determine which military campaigns to wage in conjunction with determining whether or not military objectives can be achieved, does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute a vow "never to fight again."
Foreign occupiers will have their problems because they alienate the people and make grief for themselves. The ancient Spartans avoided perpetual war because it trained their adversaries how to hurt them. They attributed their defeat by the Thebans to the enmity of one of their greatest warrior kings toward the Thebans, saying he earned his injuries in the decisive battle by his resort to constant wars there.
jhamm1 is substantially right. I'm just nitpicking.
AMERICA ups troop levels to 100,000 in Afghanistan, ALONE!
For what? To chase 100 Taliban too and fro, in and out of Pakistan?
30 YEARS AGO, The Soviets did the same...
... WOW!!! That sure did leave a lasting impression on the world, NO?
America is not "AT WAR"...
... America is THE occupiers of two and quite possibly three countries in South West Asia.
.
http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf
The "Spirit of 9/11" is all politicalBS, much as is McCain's berating of Obama's SecDef Gates now though he kissed up to same Gates when Republican SecDef. America is doomed land of cheap politics. That's our Spirit of 9/11-- Bush-it. I cry for the soldiers.
Bin Laden and the Taliban shared a common faith in Muslim fundamentalism, but the Taliban itself did not participate in the 9/11 attacks. They provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda, bought by BL's fortune with which he had built hospitals and terrorist training grounds. By 2000, most of his wealth had run dry but he remained a close friend to Mullah Omar, spiritual leader and head of the Taliban.
In 2000 - 2001, Afghanistan had its most crippling drought in 30 years, threatening some 4 million Afghans with famine. The US sent Afghanistan some $400 million in drought relief. Omar, faced with the possibility of attack and the loss of US dollars, offered up Bin Laden but with the condition that we could prove he was behind the attacks. Bush refused to talk with him so he refused to hand over bin Laden, and it was then that we went to war,,, and Bin Laden escaped - to Pakistan.
(continued)
Their escape from the American invaders increased their stature among the Sunnis and Al Qaeda grew more powerful.
Then we invaded Iraq, which never posed a threat to us, and we disbanded their army and police. Left helpless by insufficient US troops, the country was ravaged by looters and criminals, turning against us those Iraqis who had originally welcomed us as liberators from Hussein. This gave Al Qaeda an opportunity to recruit more members who then murdered tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites, and in turn, the Shiites retaliated in kind. Those factions had been living in relative harmony under the powerful grip of Saddam Hussein but, fomented, by Al Qaeda, Iraq found itself in greater misery than when it ever was under Saddam Hussein. Our "liberation" resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis, and more than 4000 Americans (many more than the original 9/11 attack).
And after the human misery and murder, and the hundreds of billions of dollars, Bin Laden and his gang of terrorist fanatics are still free. While we may defeat the Taliban, the terrorists who attacked us will remain out of our reach in Pakistan, where we really need to be of help if there is ever to be any justice for the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 - IF they actually were behind those attacks.
I've been thinking about it and I'm not sure if this comparison works. The attack on Pearl Harbor was planned and implemented by the government of Imperial Japan. It was a policy decision on the part of the Japanese. I don't know if I have ever seen evidence that the Taliban Government directed Bin Laden to attack the United States. I know elements of Al Qeada were present in Afghanistan, including Bin Laden and the leadership, but beyond providing safe haven for AQ, I'm not sure how culpable the Afghan Taliban were in the actual September 11, 2001 attacks. I noted in the President's speech that he said the United States was attacked FROM Afghanistan, but not BY Afghanistan. I think that is the difference that exists with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Actually, I wouldn't mind invading Florida.