When Lex writes about aviation-the words that trip off the page or the screen are a thing of beauty and convey the real joy that came from a career in Naval Aviation.
When he writes about politics-er, not so much.
In writing the following, he has badly misjudged the Republican party: “Republicans would rather see the country win its wars than damage the Commander in Chief for political gain.”
Ummm……No.
The statement is absurd for two reasons: first, the Republican administration of George W Bush-obsessed with starting a war on a nation that did not attack us- muffed the opportunity to “win” in Afghanistan ( whatever that word really means-neither administration really seems to be able to define it), and second-because their actions of late belie the above listed statement. Witness their pre and post speech statements, which are carefully crafted to ensure the President gets the blame if things go badly ( which they probably will) and only the military leadership will get the credit if things turn around. Or the rising noise coming from the back benchers.
Furthermore-with regard to both Afghanistan and Iraq, the surgeaholics on both sides have missed the point- Its not making us any safer or supporting our long term interests. Which are, to me, a lot more important than the welfare of ungrateful Muslims.
I’ll let someone a lot smarter than me explain for the fiftieth time. ( Not that any of the “true believers” will listen).
Bacevich’s point about Africa is well taken. The seeds of bad things for the west are being sown there-our effort in contrast to that of Iraq and Afghanistan is minimal.
But it makes such a better feel good narrative to portray only one party as politically opportunist-when in fact they both are. And the surge they backed a couple of years ago, still has not succeeded in its primary aim.
“Republicans would rather see the country win its wars than damage the Commander in Chief for political gain.”
You didn’t show how this is an absurd statement. Simply saying Bush muffed it (and I certainly agree there) does not support your assertion to the contrary. Frankly, Bush does bear the onus for a muffed effort because he got us into something we really didn’t have the guts to win. Obama is keeping us there, and under resourcing it as badly as Bush did. As on guy pithily put O=W.
There really was no reason to go into Iraq, although a lot of people earnestly believed Hussein’s bluster about Nukes. Going into AF should have been preceeded by some strategic thought of how to keep them from harboring the enemies of the US. Obama is doing no better. He’s got one eye on his base, so he wants to cut and run, but doesn’t want the blame falling on him as the blame for an intentionally lost Vietnam fell on his party, haunting them to this day.
Frankly, Skippy, I think you are indulging in the same type of armchair Generaling as the rest of the left does, without having the slightest clue what you are talking about. For myself, I have no idea how we can keep the Taliban from harboring our enemies short of annihilating them to the last man. That works for me, although I would try containment of Muslims to the Ummah before I resorted to that.
If you really think the military will not bear a lot of the blame for a loss in the middle east, you don’t pay mush attention to human nature, or to the nature of the American Communist Party better known as the Democrat Party.
Frankly, Skippy, I think you are indulging in the same type of armchair Generaling as the rest of the left does, without having the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Nice try-no cigar. You ‘ve missed a couple of very important points:
1) The Republicans are trying to paint any decision in Afghanistan as a victory of the Generals over the Commander in Chief. That ignores the fact that Obama seems to be the only person asking the right question here-how long does this go on? And when does the cost involved no longer match the benefit returned? Phrased the way Baecivich paints it-how to you stop the terrorist threat in Yemen by being in Afghanistan?
2) There is already an “anti-war” segment of the Republican party developing. On the one hand it is a return to sanity by those folks-but it is being done for really shallow reasons. Uffetz could care less about Afghanistan, all he wants to do is make Obama look bad.
3) You still are not answering the most important question and the only one that matters:
” How does this benefit the interests of the United States?’. Sure it will benefit the Afghans, but like their Arab brethern they won’t know what to do with it. And I, as an American and lover of Asia-don’t feel Asia benefits until a nation can be formed there that does not have Islam.
Finally-I don’t agree with the premise that the Democratic Party is Communist. Its not. They may not have the same ideas as you-but that does not mean they do not love the country. If anything they are ahead of the Republicans in recognizing that , as Clive Crook points out, “they [have] recognised this nation’s great strengths, but wanted to address its weaknesses. Inequality was getting out of hand; schools were letting children down, especially those from poor families; the safety net had too many holes, especially the failure to guarantee access to healthcare.
A revision to the social contract [is] required”
The current wars are getting in the way of fixing things at home as is the inherent selfishness of teabaggery. I, for one, object to war forever in a God forsaken chunk of the planet-when the outcome was pre-ordained. The only window we had to win was in 2002 and Rumsfeld blew it-as did Bush by letting him.
There is nothing to “lose” in the Middle East as OUR aims were accomplished a long time ago. The Afghan’s and Iraqis may lose-but I don’t really care about them. If we really cared about them, they would be colonies of the US right now.