Saturday, July 10, 2010

On Afghanistan, Ann Coulter and I Agree!

Well, agree somewhat, anyways...

In her July 7th column, Coulter agrees with me when I said that Michael Steele was on to something when he hung our fools' errand in Afghanistan around the President's neck as a war of Obama’s choosing. Of course, it makes me uncomfortable to agree with anything that Ann Coulter says. It's just that it's come to me that I'm feeling even more uncomfortable with General Stanley McChrystal's David Petraeus' "tough sell".

Therefore, I'm only quoting the portion of Coulter's words with which I am in agreement. In turns out that I agree with a large portion:

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.

It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" -- as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11.

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.

Having some vague concept of America's national interest -- unlike liberals -- the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."

..... (literacy rate, 19 percent; life expectancy, 44 years; working toilets, 7).

..... Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.

At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

.....Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.

As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.

Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
It's yesterday's conventional wisdom that our 44th President had his Harry Truman moment in firing Stanley McChrystal. Barack Obama still has his Lyndon Johnson's date with destiny looming before him when he has to accept a single-term presidency.

I'm not just askin'... I'm sayin'...


  1. Little wonders never cease or some dam,n thing like that.

  2. Where is Walter Cronkite, now that we need him? Again?

  3. I agree with you, Coulter, AND Steele. Unfortunately, Mr. Steele is nothing but a spineless weasel whose tendency is to cave whenever a neocon even glares at him. That's not frigging leadership, people.

  4. Vigilante,

    I tend these days to lead a quiet on-line life over on Twitter (@wizardfkap)primarily operating and promoting my Internet Radio Stations.

    But when I read Coulter's column I immediately had the exact reaction that you had. I broke out of my "easy listening" Twitter persona and immediately recommended both all conservatives and all liberals/progressives read her column. IT is that important.

    I still stop by at least three or four times a week here and follow your writings (and those of your other contributors) closely.

  5. Damn I'm having comment trauma..
    I tend to agree with her on this to,although I'll have nightmares tonight.

  6. You know what they say about a broken clock being right twice a day. Yes I agree with Ann Coulter's column. Too bad she didn't say anything like that during Bush's presidency.

  7. Agree with Coulter?
    The last clear military victory for the USA was accountable to FDR / Truman administrations. DEMOCRATS. Modern Republicans venture into war for profit and oil compacts with whatever hunta, kaliph, for the friggin money. American friendly government? Usually translates into a Republican mutual exploitation and profiting venture with a corrupted gov. No, not a 'nation building' environment, agreed. What the Bush admin invaded Afghanistan to do went totally undone, to capture the REAL (?) author of the 911 attack...bin Laden? NEVER DONE. Coulter accuses Obama of a usery that I can't agree with... the sacrifice of US lives in the pursuit of his pre-elective image? No, that's something more akin to what she's capable of. "greatest fighting force in the world"??? Well, I've never served... but much of my family has and I've learned from their experiences shared that a military is only as good as it's commanders and leaders. In that I agree we clearly have a BAD leadership with hopeless strategies. ... putting LIE to "greatest fighting force". Comparative aspects between Viet Nam - Kennedy - Johnson and Afghanistan - Bush - Obama are typical Coulter-esque self supportive bullshit analogies to appear competent.
    "irreducible requirements of Republicanism" - life? The power to do as you please when you wish to. small government? Corporation politicians bought and paid for resulting in a country plagued with gee, incidents like the effin' GULF OIL SPILL! strong national defense? war mongering and war profiteering.

    I can find no alignment with this female at all. Her purpose is to debase the President. I disagree with many of the choices he has made. I don't support a great deal of his policies. To align with the like of this kind of trash mind... I'd sooner belly up to the bar with a hungry gator. And let them buy my drink...

  8. Wow, Ms Barry, you sure are slicin' n dicin' with a much finer knife than I have at hand. (Which is fine: I'd cut myself if I wielded it.) Great comment!

  9. as u can c... I feel strongly in the matter. :-) ta Vig.