Tuesday, September 22, 2009


Is President Postmodern about to take his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan? His indecision and waffling on the subject makes it seem like he is getting cold feet. Not to mention the absolute horror of a Democrat doing something that goes against the polls. Remember--because it's easy to forget--that Afghanistan was always the Democrats "good war"--i.e., a way they could pretend to be strong and tough on national defense... you know, without actually having to be strong or tough.

Victor Davis Hanson has this to say:
Something is not quite right about the conventional wisdom about the Afghanistan war. For nearly eight years, yearly casualties in Afghanistan sometimes were less than a month's losses in the dire days in Iraq (e.g., 98 Americans killed in 2006 in Afghanistan, 112 killed in Iraq during December 2006). And while many argue that we took our eye off the ball, to quote the president, by going into Iraq to fight the optional war and shorting the essential one, it remains true that while Iraq was hottest, Afghanistan was weirdly sometimes quietest....

If there really is such a thing as a global war on radical Islamic terrorism, and bin Laden is to be taken at his word that both Afghanistan and Iraq have at times been alternately central fronts in that war, then it would be a tragedy that after fighting a two-front war, and winning one, we, rather than the losing enemy, would become demoralized by our success, and they emboldened by their defeat.

Or, to put it plainly: Obama & company can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and undo all the progress made in the [now rhetorically defunct] war on terror....or, is it now overseas non-contingency operations?

No comments: