Afghanistan: A Politically Driven War

05/25/2011 02:10 pm ET

Here we go again. The Democrats are playing politics with another war. The Dems are always good to criticize war, but when it comes to stopping it, they fold like cheap suits -- even with total control of Congress and the White House.

As demonstrated with Iraq, it seems they're prepared to allow the war in Afghanistan to continue no matter how bloody and costly, all so they can throw mud at the Republicans to win elections. Unpopular wars seem politically good for them.

Check out Chris Wallace's Q&A session with Howard Dean on Sept. 6:

WALLACE: All right. Let me get into one more subject.
Governor Dean, the president will reportedly decide in the next few weeks whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan. As a leader of the anti-war movement when it came to Iraq, will the liberal wing of the Democratic Party -- will you -- support the president if he deepens our commitment in that war?

DEAN: I'm not so sure I'm the liberal wing, but I guess I'm the -- I'm appointed by you the head of the liberal wing or whatever. No, I -- look, I've supported the president on this one. I think this is different than Iraq. I think there are people who mean the United States harm over there.

I think -- I was very pleased to say the -- hear the president a few months ago say, "Look, we can't win this war militarily." He gets what we have to do here. And it is true that American public opinion is not supportive of the war effort anymore.

I think this does have something to do with security to the United States. I do believe it has something to do with the role of women in these kinds of societies. I think we ought to be supportive of the role of women and their ability to get an education and things like that. I don't think that's the only reason we're there.

But I'm supportive of the president, and I'm going to continue to be supportive of the president on Afghanistan.

WALLACE: Well, I'm glad we were able to reach these cross-party....

DEAN: Yeah.

WALLACE: ... and intra-party divide.

DEAN: You see, it can work. It can work.

WALLACE: I brought -- I helped bring you all together. Thank you all for coming in on this holiday weekend, and especially giving the president some advice on what he should say on Wednesday night. We'll see whether he takes it.

Wallace was referring to the very short period of solidarity between Lamar Alexander, Newt Gingrich, John Podesta and Howard Dean

When those four guys start beating the same war drum -- look out.

Fast forwarding to yesterday ... read between the lines of this piece by John Kerry in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Gen. McChrystal offers no timetable or exit strategy, beyond warning that the next 12 months are critical. I agree that time is running out and that troops are dying without a sustainable strategy for victory. But we cannot rush to judgment.

Mr. Obama promises not to send more troops to Afghanistan until he has absolute clarity on what the strategy will be. He is right to take the time he needs to define the mission.

We should all follow his lead and debate all of the options.

No rush to judgment ... why not? Debate all options ... how long is that going to take?

For the troops, too long. Good thing it's not Kerry's life on the line in Afghanistan. If it were, we'd be out of there in a New York minute.

I'm against more troops in Afghanistan. Because at this point I don't think we're going to find Bin Laden or make the Afghan people love us. However, Obama hired McCrystal for a reason -- to get the job done. Now he doesn't like his assessment and wants to sit on his hands. If Obama disagrees with McCrystal's strategy he should just come out say it instead of stringing everyone along. So much for the "fierce urgency of now." All I see is indecisiveness and procrastination.

Some argue the Democrats are caving into the Republicans on this issue. I'm not so sure. The Republicans, with full knowledge that Afghanistan isn't a popular issue among voters, advocate to give McCrystal the manpower he needs. I disagree, but at least they take a sturdy position. The Dems on the other hand are all over the map. Should we? Shouldn't we? Maybe that's their strategy. In the meantime the blood flows.

The Democrats, in clear trouble in 2010, seem to be politically driven by Afghanistan. It's only a matter of time before they start targeting moderate Republicans for political elimination. All while they give their fellow Democrats (who vote the same way) a free pass. They act as if they're saviors when in reality they're perpetuators. The end goal is to replace moderate Republicans with DINOs just for the sake of the majority. And they'll use Afghanistan to help them do it.

In the meantime, I know people who are being shipped back to Iraq for a fourth deployment. I thought we were supposed to be getting out of there. Look at the numbers, we're still there in full force.

Maybe Obama started his campaign for president with good intentions, but realized when he took control of the office he couldn't deliver on "hope and change." If that's the case he needs to be more upfront about it.

Because as of right now it appears that Obama turned his back on the progressives and independents that played a key role in electing him. Hopefully they're paying attention.