What the War Means to (Some) Democrats
Jamie Rubin, assistant secretary of state to Madeleine Albright, reveals a lot about the Democrats' primary concern when it comes to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
Of course, he's not responsible for the headline -- "A War Democrats Can Win." That's The New York Times, and it implies that the war in Afghanistan, which the article goes on to discuss, should devolve into a partisan affair -- and essentially counsels Democrats to make policy recommendations based primarily on political calculations, rather than on national security concerns.
Interestingly, Rubin tags the Iraq war as unwinnable ("Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is still winnable") and argues that Democrats should urge for troops not to be brought home from Iraq, but rather transferred to Afghanistan, because that would prevent the Republicans from calling the Dems "quitters" (oh, and incidentally, might help secure the country). What is his evidence, however, that troops are unavailable for deployment to Afghanistan if more qualified people than he determine that they are needed?
Rubin's article purports to marry policy with politics . . . but what it really does is try to articulate a strategy by which Democrats can cut and run in Iraq without it looking like they're weak on terror. And inadvertantly, it reveals that the Democrats' primary goal isn't defeating terrorists or securing the American homeland. It's scoring political points.
It would be shameful if the war on terror were tagged as a "war the Republicans can win" -- and Dems would be screaming if Karl Rove produced a comparable piece. This is shameful, too.
Of course, he's not responsible for the headline -- "A War Democrats Can Win." That's The New York Times, and it implies that the war in Afghanistan, which the article goes on to discuss, should devolve into a partisan affair -- and essentially counsels Democrats to make policy recommendations based primarily on political calculations, rather than on national security concerns.
Interestingly, Rubin tags the Iraq war as unwinnable ("Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is still winnable") and argues that Democrats should urge for troops not to be brought home from Iraq, but rather transferred to Afghanistan, because that would prevent the Republicans from calling the Dems "quitters" (oh, and incidentally, might help secure the country). What is his evidence, however, that troops are unavailable for deployment to Afghanistan if more qualified people than he determine that they are needed?
Rubin's article purports to marry policy with politics . . . but what it really does is try to articulate a strategy by which Democrats can cut and run in Iraq without it looking like they're weak on terror. And inadvertantly, it reveals that the Democrats' primary goal isn't defeating terrorists or securing the American homeland. It's scoring political points.
It would be shameful if the war on terror were tagged as a "war the Republicans can win" -- and Dems would be screaming if Karl Rove produced a comparable piece. This is shameful, too.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:46 PM
9 Comments:
But wait a minute....isn't the UN handling Afghanistan? Wouldn't that be a bit...PUSHY...to just send our troops into Afghanistan, when it's already being overseen by the UN?
Ditto seems to think that an offensive by the enemy means we've lost, don't know what we're doing, or some other negative "Bush is blowing it" crapola. There's an ebb and flow in war before it's finally over. That an enemy such as what we face in Afghanistan or Iraq might regroup and try again is a surprise only to those on the left.
Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden and his cronies. After 9/11, it was rightly invaded by America and its allies.
What I can't understand is that Afghanistan, after being successfully invaded, is still being partly controlled by Al Queda.
It's a ridiculous situation. Why are there large swathes of countryside still under the control of people who were directly involved in 9/11?
While I totally disagreed with the war in Iraq, Afghanistan was always going to be a "just war" after 9/11.
So why aren't there more troops in Afghanistan? Why aren't they destroying the Taliban?
So long as Afghanistan remains in anarchy, it will be a haven for religious extremists who plot against the West.
Bush and his cronies are therefore doubly responsible for the situation. Not only did they invade a nation that was not a threat, they are also managing to lose control of a nation that was a threat.
Incompetence.
Afghanistan has been traditionally been a disaster for invaders - Alexander the Great on through the Russians - they all failed. The fact that we did as well as we did was astounding. The ability of special op's to absorb the needed methodology was magnificant. Afghanistan has some of the most difficult terrain on the planet.
The Aghanistani's have now tasted freedom. They will fight to keep it. They just need support and time.
ditto,
You are a major dispenser of crap yourself. All you did was to cite another story that suggests we may be losing. This is typical of you and yours. All I did was respond. Your fixation on the negative aspects of a situation no one would describe as a cake walk at this point is reprehensible in it's transparent delight at a possible Bush failure. And that, sir, is crap.
Hey Pat,
I don't know how long it took you to find an obscure website to find such comments from the right. To hear similar from the left, one need only tune into Air America every day. If you can stand it.
While Republicans aren't saying the very words: "A War the Republicans Can Win", they have been packaging their political maneuverings in exactly that tone.
Republicans will fight and win.
Democrats will cut and run.
It may be tacky. But it may also be necessary. We are in a war, like it or not. And the public needs to be made aware of where the political parties stand on this most important issue.
I don't think it so shameful for Democrats to search for a winning strategy concerning the war. I think it shameful they have to.
They've painted themselves into a corner by wishing failure on the Bush Administration. It has made them look weak on national defense. Now they're scrambling to offset the damage they've done to themselves.
Another note on my previous comment:
And Republicans are right to highlight the problems the Democrats have made for themselves. That's politics.
Salient,
An excellent post until the very last. I think it rather naive to think Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
I'm just an ordinary citizen and therefore have no more particular intelligence details on this matter than anyone else. That's what our government is for. It's their primary responsibility. I believe they DO have more information on this than the average citizen. Besides, at the time many, many other governments (as well as previous U.S. administrations) were making exactly the same case as the Bush Administration:
Sadaam was a threat that had to be dealt with.
The only thing Bush did different from all these other governments (and previous US administrations) was to actually act on this policy.
differently - not different
Sorry, I'm more than a little embarrassed for the above grammatical error.
Post a Comment
<< Home