WaPo poll: 7 in 10 Democrats now say war in Afghanistan wasn’t worth fighting

posted at 8:20 pm on August 19, 2009 by Allahpundit

Remember, this is supposed to be the “good war” they were all pretend-itching to fight once Obama undid George Bush’s terrible, terrible mistake in Iraq. It was just over a year ago, as I recall, that Harry Reid was talking up how well things were going to boost The One’s campaign promise to secure the country.

Now, the truth:

Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. Nearly two-thirds of the most committed Democrats now feel “strongly” that the war was not worth fighting. Among moderate and conservative Democrats, a slim majority say the United States is losing in Afghanistan.

Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war’s strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama’s policies. A narrow majority of conservatives approve of Obama’s handling of the war (52 percent), as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent).

Among all adults, 51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting, up six points since last month and four points above the previous high, reached in February. Less than half, 47 percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those strongly opposed (41 percent) outweigh strong proponents (31 percent)…

Among liberals, his rating on handling the war, which he calls one of “necessity,” has fallen swiftly, with strong approval cratering by 20 points. Nearly two-thirds of liberals stand against a troop increase, as do about six in 10 Democrats.

A dirty little secret that WaPo won’t tell you: When they asked this same question last July, a majority of Democrats said the war wasn’t worth fighting then, too. Bear that in mind when the spin starts tomorrow that these new numbers are a reaction to conditions deteriorating inside the country. The good news? Now that Bush is out of office and the White House is safely won, the left doesn’t give a wet crap whether Obama escalates in Afghanistan or not. For once, Cindy Sheehan is under no illusions:

The “anti-war” “left” was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the “anti-Republican War” movement.

While I agree with you about the hypocrisy of such sites as the DailyKos, I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible with the Republicans. That’s why I left the party in May 2007 and that’s why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.

Exit question: Any lefties care to enlighten us in the comments as to what the withdrawal “strategy” here is? No one believes the country is secure against the Taliban; no one believes either that the Taliban would deny sanctuary to Al Qaeda. If the war on terror is now a war on Al Qaeda specifically, why cede an entire country back to them to use as their base of operations by pulling out?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

At some press conference in the near future, Obama will begin with;

“Let me be clear, I have ALWAYS said we should not be fighting in Afghanistan!”

Star20 on August 19, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Spathi says “End the Occupation”,,I guess Spathi would rather have it occupied by extreme Muslims who love democracy, freedom, gay rights, and pro-abortion rights. He wants the rights for himself but not for others.

garydt on August 19, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Circa 2012:

Just about three years ago I set out on Obama’s Afghanistan road,
Seekin’ my fame and glory, lookin’ to turn the mullah’s hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.

Flew in on a big plane, I hope I’ll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was just passin’ through, must now be yet another 2 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience, looks like they took more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.

The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, a one year stand, looks like the plans fell through again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.

Mmmm…
If I only had a woman, for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while chickenhawk dissembler Obama sat back home power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama’s Afghanistan again.

- CCR Soldier Boy

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Marine Mission in Afghanistan: Drink Tea, Eat Goat, Get to Know the People

This deployment, the headline tells us, is “a Crucial Test for Revised U.S. Strategy.” (Uh-oh is right.) And what is that strategy? On the one hand, the Taliban is off the hook. On the other, we have given our men Mission Impossible. “Our focus is not the Taliban,” Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson told his officers. “Our focus must be getting this government back on its feet.”

A few questions, just to get the brain working: Why? What do we care about putting “this government” back on its feet? And what government? And since when is it the Marines’ mission to stand up governments? (Since Iraq. Enough said.)

I don’t know how many times I’ve read a statement like this one today in The Post from the US: “Mullen said he is `extremely concerned’ about the paucity of Afghan National Army and Afghan police forces in the south and elsewhere….” Funny how, as the Post also reports, $5 a day gets the Taliban as many fighters as needed. Mullen doesn’t seem to wonder why the Taliban draw men with five bucks and the US-supported Afghan government doesn’t with billions. Or, why the Islamic jihadists draw fighters with five bucks and the infidel-supported government doesn’t with billions. In fact, Mullen thinks the problem is “the long-standing deficit in the number of foreign [read: infidel] military trainers….”

And what are we going to do?

Once Marine units arrive in their designated towns and villages, they have been instructed to build and live in small outposts among the local population.

This sounds familiar…where have we heard it before?

“We’re not going to measure your success by the number of times your ammunition is resupplied. . . . Our success in this environment will be very much predicated on restraint,” he told a group of officers from the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines on Sunday. “You’re going to drink lots of tea. You’re going to eat lots of goat. Get to know the people. That’s the reason why we’re here.”

It’s a mad world.

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:07 PM

A question for our brass: If the Taliban is responsible for disproportionately more casualties than the United States — and purposely so where ours are inadvertent — shouldn’t, by our brass’ own reckoning, all those Afghan hearts and minds already belong to us? Could there be something else – such as the Islamic religion – causing Afghans to reject our infidel “hearts and minds” pathetically pressed on them, along with grotesque sums of money, like hopeless valentines?

These are questions the brass can’t answer, can’t even think about, because the answers would upend America’s entire Afghan strategy. We are in a war on civilian casualties in Afghanistan to win Afghan hearts and minds. Period. And woe to statistics, let alone basic and intractable religious differences, that undermine this illusory strategy.

But there is something else Americans should become aware of regarding the military’s obsession with further decreasing casualties as a means to victory. Our troops, the brass says, are the ones who are ultimately going to have to find what Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, our new commander in Afghanistan, earnestly calls the “balance.”

I watched McChrystal discuss his mission to further decrease civilian casualties in an online BBC video this week. “It’s a balance for the young soldier on the ground who is in combat,” he explained. “One of the assets that he has that might save his life might be air power or indirect fire from artillery or mortars and we don’t want to take away that protection for him.”

No, we don’t, General. So why are we even talking about it? The lightly hinted implication — that our troops may be called on to think twice about saving their own lives — is chilling.

“Victory in this conflict is about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and engendering their trust,” Brig. Gen. Steven Kwast, commander of 5,000 airmen at Bagram Field, told the Air Force Times last week. “When the Afghan people trust us and believe us … we will win this overnight.” Just don’t anyone hold his breath.

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:09 PM

It’s Obama’s war now.

coldwarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM

It irks me that our military personnel have to salute this bag of douchieness.

SouthernGent on August 19, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Me too.

BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:11 PM

It’s a mad world.

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Great song.

BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:12 PM

It’s Obama’s war now.

coldwarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Damn right! And I intend to cram it down his throat.

US War Policy: More “Kung Fu” Than Sun Tzu

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:12 PM

What a shock. Most of these Dems were over the whole thing in less than a year, many were never riled up about it in the first place-felt we deserved it. No skin off of their behinds if a few thousand Americans they don’t even know get killed…or even a few thousand or more after that.

But, DO NOT question their Patriotism!!!

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 19, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Obama’s strategy is to minimize Afghan casualties at the expense of raising American casualties. So far his plan seems to be working.

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:17 PM

I don’t really consider myself a lefty but how about use about half to a quarter of those tax dollars spent on war for actual security. We’re just making more enemies in the middle east and across the world. The more funerals and weddings the get blown up, the more we look like them. Which is obviously counter productive. Not to mention that such a high military budget is unsustainable, as our deficiet shows.

The Calibur on August 19, 2009 at 10:19 PM

DIRT doesn’t matter. You don’t defeat a trans-national terrorist organization by occupying medieval villages.

Yesterday, President Obama presented his “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was neither new, nor a strategy. Behind all the rhetoric, he just said, I’m sending more troops and more money.

Barack Obama? I heard Lyndon Johnson. The only LBJ touch that BHO lacked was the word “escalation.”

The rhetoric was masterly. The content was drivel. He said, “The situation is increasingly perilous.” Which situation? Why? For whom? Certainly, it’s becoming more perilous for our troops as we escalate in support of the wrong policy.

Or how about Obama’s ringing claim that the Taliban have “nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and oppression?” Many Afghans — at least among the Pashtun plurality — don’t agree.

The tribals deep in those valleys and the Pashtuns in Pakistan feel a lot closer to the Taliban’s values than to ours. They might not mind a new road, but they’ll skip the bikinis and Budweiser, thanks. The Talibs are home-boys. We’re the foreign element. Why is that so hard to grasp?

All of this circles back to the core of the problem — and it’s not Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s not worth a mullah’s hemorrhoid. Putting the bulk of our effort into Afghanistan amounts to attacking a crisis in California by rescuing Nevada. It’s Pakistan that lies (and lies and lies) at the heart of this problem.

To his credit, Obama noted Pakistan’s importance. Then he got all the solutions wrong.

Start with his inane — but touchingly American — statement that “the people of Pakistan want the same things we want.” Oh, really?

How many Post readers think Sharia law would be a good idea? How about beating the crap out of women just for yuks? Or stoning them to death because they smiled at the wrong time? And let’s ban alcohol, bare arms, dating and jobs for women. And grow those beards, fellas!

And how about asking ourselves the fundamental question: “Why is India a success story and Pakistan a complete failure?” Any chance that backward Islam might have something to do with it? We can’t bribe people to succeed.

Our president identified al Qaeda as Pakistan’s No. 1 enemy. That’s wishful thinking. Pakistan’s leading enemy has always been corruption. No. 2 is its home-grown Islamist insurgency. Al Qaeda’s way down the list.

Our pathetically naive president articulated one sound goal — defeating al Qaeda — then told us how he wasn’t going to do it. Like LBJ, all he can think of is more troops and more aid. Can’t we ask ourselves why the Taliban’s thriving? After the military beatings we’ve given them? How many of our troops must die for an empty policy?

Hey, hey, ho, ho, BHO, why don’t your supporters go?

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM

The Calibur:

The military is the only thing Obama wants to cut, and it will get cut.

Osama bin Laden and the AlQaida is a lot less popular today than it was when we went into Afghanistan. Thus far, they have lost a lot more ground with the people over there than the US has.

And Afghanistan is not making enemies across the world, after all..it is a UN and a NATO sanctioned and supported venture.

Terrye on August 19, 2009 at 10:22 PM

MB4:

Except for the fact that the Afghanis are not dying at a lesser rate.

Terrye on August 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM

G47MNX9Ikzlf

The majority of people we fight in the middle east aren’t affiliated with Al Qaida. If a bunch of middle eastern people showed up in you neighborhood, killed relatives of yours on accident, cut off many major utilities, and told you to keep to yourself, would you?

Or you could end up like the Awakening Councils in Iraq that are getting screwed right and proper by the Iraqi government and are now blowing up bombs. That’s inevitability. History shows that Afghanistan is impossilbe to conquer. It’s a fools errand

The Calibur on August 19, 2009 at 10:27 PM

MB4:

Except for the fact that the Afghanis are not dying at a lesser rate.

Terrye on August 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Well OK then, half of Obama’s plan is working. Batting .500 is a lot better than he usually does.

Actually, the idea was for American troops to kill less Afghans, which would be fine if it wasn’t getting more American troops killed.

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Well m4b it is clear your “bomb all the Muslims and let god sort it out” is both unstable and unworkable.

Now in the real world people that love America are looking for a workable solution.

Part of the problem we face working with Obama in office is the GOP leadership has enabled your religious bigotry for short term political gain and now that democrats are in charge your bigotry isn’t allowed at the table. So instead of checking yourself you are lashing out.

frumian on August 19, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Well m4b it is clear your “bomb all the Muslims and let god sort it out” is both unstable and unworkable.

That is not my plan. Stop fantasizing. Unstable and unworkable sounds more like Obama Care or Obama Energy policy.

Now in the real world people that love America are looking for a workable solution.

Empty platitude. Actually three of them.

Part of the problem we face working with Obama in office is the GOP leadership has enabled your religious bigotry for short term political gain and now that democrats are in charge your bigotry isn’t allowed at the table. So instead of checking yourself you are lashing out.

frumian on August 19, 2009 at 10:40 PM

My “religious bigotry”? You have got to be kidding me.

Do you know anything about Islam? Anything? Ever hear of their “Perfect Man”, Mohammad? Do you know what he taught?

MB4 on August 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM

I don’t give a crap about Republicans or Democrats. I think the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth fighting for.

terryannonline on August 19, 2009 at 11:01 PM

The LBJ curse. They defined Afghanistan as the good battlefield and Iraq as the wasted battlefield in an election strategy.

Now Obama is trying, in the tradition of Bill Clinton, to prove he is not a wuss, so a bunch more got killed. Would they have been killed without the PR? Possibly.

I liked Clinton’s approach better. He had planes bomb from 20,000 ft in Kosovo so the pilots were safe, and he launched a couple missiles against terror camps to prove he was serious.

If you are going to wage war for political gain, you owe it to the troops to keep them out of harm’s way

Obama strategists decreed the Taliban to be the source of what used to be called ‘terrorism’. This is part of defining islam ‘up’ as a religion of peace by defining Taliban ‘down’ as the source of all evil in the islamic world

How does Wuss-Bama withdraw from fighting the Taliban to extinction now he has defined them as the source of world terror? If he throws off this war, he throws off the reason a whole bunch of soldiers just died

entagor on August 19, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Exit question: Any lefties care to enlighten us in the comments as to what the withdrawal “strategy” here is? No one believes the country is secure against the Taliban; no one believes either that the Taliban would deny sanctuary to Al Qaeda. If the war on terror is now a war on Al Qaeda specifically, why cede an entire country back to them to use as their base of operations by pulling out?

Are you kidding!!!

You want the “War is Lost”/”The surge won’t work” crowd to
give any credible advice about how to win a war.

Look…liberals vote for and fund wars,they have no intentions of winning them,it’s to messy and politically dangerous.

Now if you want to know how to make clever bumper stickers,

wave the peace sign,

protest war except when a democrat is in the White House,

and capitulate to the enemy,

then I am sure some liberals will be able to answer that for you.

Baxter Greene on August 19, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Allah hates you this I know
For the Koran tells me so
Infidels Christians and Jews we bomb
They are weak but we are strong

Yes Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you,
The Koran tells me so.

Allah hates you, you will die
Blow your ass up to the sky
Say the salat, chop off head,
Eat falafel, go to bed.

Yes, Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you! Yes, Allah hates you!

The Koran tells me so.

Aleph on August 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Obama and his cronies will yet tear defeat from the jaws of victory. I have the utmost faith in His “Smart Diplomacy”. Look how well it’s working in NK and Iran.

GarandFan on August 19, 2009 at 11:10 PM

9/11? What’s that?

Django on August 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Liberals just don’t understand the concept of fighting to win when it comes to war/national security.

They’re all about that when it comes to elections thus gaining more power but permitting our troops to fight to win… not so much.

Yakko77 on August 19, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Exit question: Any lefties care to enlighten us in the comments as to what the withdrawal “strategy” here is? No one believes the country is secure against the Taliban; no one believes either that the Taliban would deny sanctuary to Al Qaeda. If the war on terror is now a war on Al Qaeda specifically, why cede an entire country back to them to use as their base of operations by pulling out?

It’s an incredibly challenging question. I don’t think we can just assume that, after the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan that Al-Qaeda has learned its lesson and, amazingly, Afghani citizens still are more afraid of the Taliban than they are desiring of a better life for themselves. I’m curious about the role of heroin production and the financing of the Taliban. Taliban weapons are bought with heroin money, the price of which is driven by its blackmarket status. Libertarians out there who have noticed the role marijuana plays in funding Mexican drug cartels should be sympathetic to similar arguments about heroin, legalizing it may severely cut into their weapons buying power.

CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:27 PM

MB4 says his bigotry is justified because he hasn’t met any tolerant Muslims.

What a tool. I really hope your toxic attitude is stamped out of polite company in our party or we won’t see power again for a very long time?

Are you a Hal turner style plant trying to discredit conservatives?

frumian on August 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM

frumian on August 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Islam’s war on the West began in 600A.D….it has not abated. It had had periods of self-destruction, periods of quite plodding along, but it has never stopped in its war to turn the whole world into an Islamic paradise.

The current war on the West got its kick-start from the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1936. From him, all the parts of radical Islam can be traced…the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ba’ath Party, and yes, even the taliban and al-Qaeda.

Over 1.6 billion Moslems out there…willing to follow any strong horse to achieve what the Koran commands.

yes, there are moderate Moslems, just as there are fallen Catholics or reform Jews, or sometimes baptists or other denominations. But, as soon as an advantage is seen, tasted, it is taken. This is the history of Islam since 600 A.D..

Even the Koran commands Moslems to mingle with the infidels if it may serve to prolong Islam in a given place or expand Islam eventually.

Are all Moslems the enemy? Perhaps not at times, but the doctrine of their faith is…unless you wish to submit.

I do not. I find their practices abhorant. I find their intolerance shameful.

I’d much rather deal with an intolerant Baptist any day than an intolerant Moslem.

coldwarrior on August 19, 2009 at 11:48 PM

MB4 says his bigotry is justified because he hasn’t met any tolerant Muslims.

What a tool. I really hope your toxic attitude is stamped out of polite company in our party or we won’t see power again for a very long time?

Are you a Hal turner style plant trying to discredit conservatives?

frumian on August 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM

You are incoherent.

MB4 on August 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM

2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.

MB4 on August 20, 2009 at 12:11 AM

In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.

Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of searching for unicorns.

Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammad himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”

Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.

Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest.
- JihadWatch (A_Plague_on_Both_Houses)

MB4 on August 20, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Imagine there’s no Islam
It’s hard but you can try
No suicide hijackers coming down at us
Above us only sky
Imagine all those people
Still alive today…

Imagine there’s no Islamic countries
It’s hard but you can try
No Mohammad for them to kill or die for
And no Imams too
Imagine all the Christians, Jews and Infidels
Living life without them…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday all dhimmis will join us
And the non-Islamic world will be as one

Imagine no honor killings and stonings
I wonder if you can
No need for Medina or Meca
A brotherhood of non-Islamic woman and man
Imagine all the people
Living without Sharia…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday all dhimmis will join us
And the non-Islamic world will be as one

MB4 on August 20, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Muslims consider infidels to be heretical and permanent enemies of their faith, and all of the “altruistic” and “idealistic” help which the naive infidels try to give the Mohammedans will both be resented and then turned against we unclean kaffirs, since the “religious” goal of all of the Ummah (Islamic people) is a global theocratic terror state …under either an Imam-ate (if the Shi’ites win) or a Caliph-ate (should the Sunnis triumph).

A better course than trying to “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan would be to bomb their jihadist troublemakers (whenever they raised an ugly head) from the air ~with drones, cruise missiles, Warthogs, or B-2′s, as needed, and to hell with placing any long-term troops among these brainwashed, dogmatically-violent schmucks.

Unless you go into a pernicious Muslim state to overthrow Islam, these halfway, half-hearted, half-witted “missions” are foredoomed to failure. And will only end up as interminable holding actions… that only allow the enemy to steal our advanced weaponry, learn our best military strategies, and then come back at us even stronger …because of our mental weakness in failing to confront the root cause of all of this “sectarian” lunacy and homicidal activity: Mohammad.

Either crush the tyranny that is fundamentalist Islam, or just hit them from the air and let the Muslims sort out their own moral and spiritutal corruptions (“holy” misogyny, sanctified pedophilia, a contempt for all other faiths, their eternally expanding imperialism, dogmatic cruelty, and a diseased “iconoclasm” which is anti-art, anti-music, anti-freedom of thought, ad nauseam) on their own.

Bush, and now Obama, are simply sleepwalkers blundering among wide-awake jihadist killers.

We cannot win a war which we have utterly mis-defined.

profitsbeard on August 20, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Bush, and now Obama, are simply sleepwalkers blundering among wide-awake jihadist killers.

We cannot win a war which we have utterly mis-defined.

profitsbeard on August 20, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Bush might have pulled back because of extreme political and media pressure but obama is just a cluster farg who’s changed the ROE twice already and is overtly trying to lose this and Iraq.

hawkdriver on August 20, 2009 at 2:01 AM

So where are all the Democrat anti-war protesters standing in front of the White House, hounding Obama at every place he goes to stop the war in Afghanistan???

Which is more worrying to the Democrats – making Obama look incompetent and a poor leader with large, vocal anti-war protests or the consequences of a larger, longer war in Afghanistan? I would guess the former, that is why there are no Democrat anti-war protests.

albill on August 20, 2009 at 6:25 AM

The Left disdains war and cannot understand it: they wish that everyone would just be nice to each other, because that is human nature, right?

But that is not human nature as we are creatures of the Law of Nature, and building civilization requires civility and the ability to back that to the hilt against those who would create only dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. In recognizing we are born with all liberty, positive and negative, we use reason to vest some few of our negative liberties in society and then into government so we can keep watch on them. That does not mean we lose even those negative liberties, however, but have common agreement to put their use to government for our self-protection. When we see those who reclaim all their liberties to fight as they will for themselves, we see man in his natural state and recognize them as Enemies of All Mankind.

Winning a war is not long term Victory: America learned that after WWI. We did not commit to Victory over those that supported our enemies but, instead, sought to buy them off while temporary Winning was had. And we, in turn, were had by that delusion that diplomacy could fix what was unfixable.

Afghanistan was always going to be hard: it is Mountain Warfare. The Left, by not understanding warfare, understanding human nature, thinks war can be done on a ‘dimmer switch’… but no form of warfare can be done that way, and Mountain Warfare requires logistics and more than just Theater Strategy for Winning not to speak of Victory. I cricized the strategy of Bush on this when it became crystal clear he had no intention of either carrying the fight outwards, had no ability to get agreement from Pakistan to go after the Taliban/al Qaeda and had zero plans for a good, hard, fast second supply route to Afghanistan. To Win, not to be Victorious, but just to Win so as to be able to create Victory one of those three if not two are mandatory. You either deploy irregulars or seek Letters of Marque and Reprisal for citizens to inflict harm on al Qaeda/Taliban and their supporters, or you get Pakistani National Support to fight inside Pakistan and get their help in the NWFP and other tribal areas, or you settle in for the long, hard fight and get a second supply route that requires your enemy to then shift their assets to try and go after that, and you are prepared to fight them along that entire route.

In Winning in Iraq we must be able to cement Victory and ensure that civil society there does not decay back into the maelstrom of outsider supported factional fighting. Yet we are not doing that. There, at least, we had secondary supply routes that, though feeble, existed. Plus there was a pre-existing civil society that was and is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and accepted religious diversity as witness the Yezidi and followers of John the Baptist still living IN Iraq. Iraqis need to rebuild civil institutions and start the hard work of transforming their economy from natural resources to productive industry.

Afghanistan had no pre-existing civil infrastructure save for the remnants of the old inter-tribal fromal parliament system. There are no great water works to replace, no rail lines to put back into service, no large grain mills to upgrade and refit, no National electrical service… Yet we could change that by re-directing our support for Big Agriculture to Afghanistan, deploy our expertise in farming, water resource management, and necessary infrastructure there and put the billions wasted in pork into the fight.

Now the Left quails at the thought of all that pork put to good use and not towards simple, despicable political favoritism. Navel gazing once you have been hit, and hit hard, is an option only for the weak who will surrender to those willing to use their base natures to terrorize our civil discourse. We can deploy the Civil Sword, but to do so requires that we USE it and then recognize the hard work after Winning to complete Victory. Lose now and we condemn hundreds, if not thousands or more of our fellow citizens and people around the world to a worse life and frequent sudden death as those willing to be Natural Man use barbarity to get their way as our civilization fails.

Having no heart to fight, they surrender.

Having no mind to analyze warfare, they cannot speak with reason about it.

Having felt they understand human nature, they wish to ignore those things that point to how wrong they are about it.

That is a recipe for tyranny, not liberty.

ajacksonian on August 20, 2009 at 8:02 AM

So we WEREN’T lying when we said Democrats would quit the war on terror.

And we AREN’T lying when we say the health care takeover bill will kill senior citizens to save money.

Does the President seem even remotely concerned about your well being?

No, actually, he seems pretty callous.

This is not a nice man.

jeff_from_mpls on August 20, 2009 at 8:06 AM

Remember, only a few months ago, when we had a real President.

Jeff from WI on August 20, 2009 at 8:15 AM

So is it now time to face the reality that libs are a bunch of cowards who think the only thing worth fighting for is their right to spend other peoples’ money?

katiejane on August 20, 2009 at 9:46 AM

I am not a leftist but I too fail to understand what is being achieved in Afghanistan. Our leaders have not bothered to study the history and practice of religion in the area. I see little chance of success as a result. More to the point no one has defined the success criteria.

Anders on August 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM

A dirty little secret that WaPo won’t tell you: When they asked this same question last July, a majority of Democrats said the war wasn’t worth fighting then, too.

I know liberals who said that IN 2001.

Cylor on August 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM

The war may have been worth fighting, but an endless occupation may not be worth continuing.

The exit strategy is easy – just go. The alternative is staying forever. With a trillion dollar deficit, I think we need to think about cutting costs.

Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that never-ending occupations are very expensive and have no guarantee of success. Democracy promotion via military action simply isn’t cost effective.

Enrique on August 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM

“The real war on terror is the war in Afghanistan”

Nancy Pelosi, 2007

el gordo on August 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Has there ever been a war worth fighting to the type of people who call themselves liberals.

McBride on August 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2