Winter 2009

Comments

Phony War: Afghanistan and the Democrats

Victor Davis Hansonn

Most Americans in 2003 thought that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were complementary theaters in the wider war on radical Islamic terrorism and the authoritarian Middle East regimes that aided and abetted it. The anti-Iraq War left agreed that the two fronts were connected—but in an antithetical, rather than a symbiotic, way. For them, the illegitimate, unilateral war in Iraq came at the expense of the lawful multilateral struggle in Afghanistan. Yet a brief review of the two wars not only suggests that such a view is mistaken, but also that it is disingenuous—especially the trope of damning the American effort in Iraq by claiming that, in addition to its other moral and strategic deficits, it caused us to “take our eye off” Afghanistan.

Full text article

This is interesting enough, and there is plenty of evidence that Democrats in the Congress have acted badly. But the author does not seem even to try to make a case for a mission in either state. Before undertaking a bet, a game, a lawsuit, or a war, even before deciding how to win, one should determine what one gets upon "victory" and whether he wants to obtain that result. I should like to see someone as obviously able as this author answer that question regarding the adventure in Iraq. As for fighting enemies in Iraq, it seems to me odd that, as the author suggests, America's enemies have helpfully traveled to a killing field where they are easily found. Afghanistan is best left to the middle ages in which it finds itself, and America's efforts should be limited to discouraging the migration of its savagery to where our interests lie. But there is merit in appehending and punishing bin Laden and the other criminals who committed murder on our soil. Terrorists are not entitled to be treated as warriors. Warriors are not criminals when they kill enemy soldiers under the laws of war, and persons wearing uniforms do not remain soldiers when they murder. The war rhetoric is only an excuse for declaring terrorists "outlaw", in the sense that vermin are outlaw, so that in the thirst for vengeance we may indulge our baser interests. It is our national shame.

Posted by Jim Majkowski | January 15, 2009 4:01:31 PM EST

"“Taking our eye off the ball” was never the major objection to the war in Iraq. It was one of many. The main objection was that the Iraq war was taking too long. And as the next elections rolled around, the Opposition needed an issue. In any case, Afghanistan does not need to be modernized, and the Taliban itself might be agreeable, if we could just destroy al-Queda.

Posted by Fred | January 20, 2009 2:55:59 AM EST

Saudi Arabia exported Wahhabism & al Qaeda to Afghanistan vis-a-vis Pakistan -- all the while President Bush championed Saudi Arabia & Pakistan as our "allies" in the War on Terror. Since then, the Gitmo detainee released to Saudi Arabia (having gone through a Saudi re-education program) are now back on the battlefield killing Americans. That's what is meant by taking your eye off the ball. The Saudis & Pakis are killing us, and we thank them for it -- precisely because of people like you who make excuses for them with hand-wringing justifications.

Posted by R Hampton | January 29, 2009 2:43:01 PM EST

Submit Your Comment