Michael Steele, Gen. Petraeus and the Afghanistan Dilemma
I was watching Sunday talk soup (i.e., ABC's This Week) when of course the most recent RNC Chair Michael Steele kerfuffle (involving comments Steele made during a Connecticut fundraiser) came up again. Now, usually, when people say that they are quoted out of context, it's disingenuous defensive spin. The Steele quote (Afghanistan "is a war of Obama's choosing") really is out of context. At first glance, this seems to suggest that Obama made the decision to go to war in Afghanistan. This is really a poorly phrased statement: what Steele meant to say is: "Obama has chosen to extend a land-based war strategy in Afghanistan; foreign ground troop strategies have been historically ineffective in the history of Afghanistan." And, as I pointed out in a recent post, Obama boxed himself in with political rhetoric terming Afghanistan (versus Iraq) as being the "real war".
If you listen to the rest of the comments, it's fairly clear that Steele did not forget why President Bush initiated military actions after 9/11 to oust the Taliban after they balked at demands to hand over Osama bin Laden and to dismantle the terrorist bases in Afghanistan. Rather, when he talks about "a war of Obama's choosing", he's referring to a land-based strategy involving a heavy presence of US troops. In fact, Steele says that the US should have a background role, e.g., the air/logistical support to the Northern Alliance that marked the initial phase of America's involvement, and he's quite clear about it: "There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops."
Hearing the DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse attempt to play a "divide-and-conquer" strategy against the Republicans is particularly obnoxious since his own Congressional majority in the spring of 2007 was attempting to redefine our next steps in Iraq exactly the same type of strategy Steele appears to be advocating in Afghanistan. In fact, a number of Democrats in both houses are sympathetic to Steele's comments regarding a land-based strategy.
Does that mean that Steele is in the clear? No. Where was Steele on this point last fall when Obama was dithering on McChrystal's options for the surge decision? Steele could have said, "Hey, look. Obama hasn't secured any meaningful additions in manpower from our NATO allies. Afghanistan is different from Iraq; why are we paying a disproportionate cost at the expense of American blood and treasure?" There is little doubt that most Republicans and conservatives were pushing for a low-risk/more manpower surge strategy, no doubt trusting the same strategy that worked so well in Iraq would encounter similar success in Afghanistan. There is a legitimate point to be made that Obama chose a high-risk strategy and the current problematic status could be attributed to Obama's clearly political moves in splitting high-risk manpower differences and announcing a withdrawal prematurely, before we had feedback on surge stabilization. (I'm not interested in hearing self-serving nuances over what constitutes a "withdrawal". Quoting The One: "Don't tell me words don't matter.")
The second substantive criticism of Steele is that he seems to be confounding the concept of a counter-insurgency surge strategy with conventional land wars, which is precisely the conceptual error made by Democrats in the spring of 2007. However, he may be right to question whether the anti-insurgency tactics used in Iraq can be similarly applied to Afghanistan.
Bill Kristol, Lynne Cheney and other neo-conservatives need to be held accountable for muddled thinking, and I wasn't happy with the Gen. Petraeus hearings. I thought Petraeus put lipstick on a pig; it may very well be the case women's rights, for instance, are being better protected, and several local economies are thriving better than under the former Taliban government. But we are not spending billions of taxpayer money and priceless American lives to promote modern social policies. Our forces are complaining that counter-insurgency policies meant to minimize collateral damage (i.e., lower civilian casualties) are putting our troops at risk, e.g., instead of bombing suspect buildings, GI's clear out booby-trapped facilities. It is true Petraeus is indicating that the rules of engagement are going to be modified, and he has also suggested that he could request more troops if needed.
The truth is that General Petraeus has not been indifferent to what has happened under McChrystal in Afghanistan; by some accounts, the Taliban believe that they are winning, and nearly all believe that the status quo is not improving. I think that Petraeus has been given a pass, mostly because of the universally acknowledged success in Iraq. But I think he needs to address whether the counter-insurgency policies as implemented to date are sufficient to ensure mission success, given Afghanistan's past, with a weak central government and little effective control in the south/east provinces. In particular, if he loosens rules of engagement, won't that compromise the counter-insurgency strategy?
It's very clear where Kristol, Cheney and others are coming from: it was 3.5 years ago when Republicans and conservatives had to push hard to sustain Bush's new surge policy in Iraq, with the war/occupation deeply unpopular with the American people. But the case for nation building was stronger in Iraq: in essence, we overthrew the rogue Saddam Hussein regime using ground forces; in a counterproductive move, we disbanded the Iraq military. Almost 9 years after the Northern Alliance, with our logistic support, swept the Taliban out of power, we still have a central government which can't solidify support against the universally despised Taliban.
In my opinion, Michael Steele raised some important points. In an economy heading towards hyper-inflation, structurally unmanageable national debts, and/or Greek-style austerity measures, we cannot continue to spend a disproportionate amount of world's military dollars, subsidize international security costs, and be held hostage by the dysfunctional policies of corrupt leaders in misguided nation building efforts. We have to live within our means; this requires shared sacrifice, and spending cuts across the board--with nothing, not entitlements, not the military, off limits. We have to learn to pick our battles and streamline our foreign entanglements. No, we will never allow another 9/11. But we no longer issue blank checks.
Same Old Same Old: Dems Want to Make Unemployment Payments a Campaign Issue
The Dems are scrambling for "substantive" campaign issues: after Blumenthal's (D-CN) embarrassingly false claims of Vietnam experience, they lucked into Congressman Kirk's (R-IL) embellishments on legitimate national service; Rand Paul (R-KY) decides, on the air, to make an unforced error, by criticizing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a sacred cow in American politics; Sharron Angle (R-NV), apparently oblivious of what happened to Reagan's attempt to reduce new cabinet positions (e.g., the Department of Education), starts discussing radical reforms, which would be vetoed by Obama and easily sustained by the Democrats in Congress, even if the GOP sweeps this fall. Oh, and let's not forget RNC Chair Michael Steele, whom has had to deal with a provocative fundraising presentation (with a disparaging image of Obama), embarrassing reimbursement claims by others for strip club bills, and, of course, the Afghanistan kerfuffle discussed above, at odds with the consensus of Congressional Republicans.
But no, what could the Dems possibly use to make the Republicans look like heartless Scrooges and motivate the base? How about DENYING extensions to unemployment insurance? A retiring Jim Bunning (R-KY) became a national whipping boy for wanting the Dems (gasp!) pay for it using already allocated funds! Bunning eventually agreed to give up his hold in exchange for a vote on his amendment--which, of course, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) never honored. So here we are again, with unemployment hanging in the balance. The Dems need $33B to extend unemployment benefits; there's slack in last year's stimulus bill. The Republicans don't want the Dems to add to the deficit and the national debt. The bill fell 1 vote short of cloture (with Nelson (D-NE) and the Maine senators switching partyline votes). Voinovich (R-OH) offered to split the difference, using half from the leftover stimulus money, and Reid turned him down. Durbin (D-IL) sees the unemployment bill as a baby "stimulus" bill and doesn't want to spare a penny from the Democratic
In the eyes of progressive Democrats, all federal spending is stimulus. They've been busy stimulating the economy since the Great Depression. No wonder the economy seems listless and tired; it's stayed awake for decades with constant Dem tax-and-spend nightmares. Might I suggest the de facto Dem motto: "Never put off to tomorrow what you can spend today." They have inverted the concept of layaways: they buy ineffective goods and services today and made interest payments on the balance due--forever.
You know, let's just cut out the middle man; unemployed people should just ask their kids for access to their piggy banks or to co-sign their loans.... More seriously, there is a reason why we need to have a more serious conversation over unemployment. It sometimes postpones the day of reckoning for unemployed people. I have made multiple moves over the past several years, motivated by better employment prospects. The Republicans aren't even making that argument right now. But the intransigence of the Dems to refuse even considering taking half the money from last year's stimulus funds and to want to finance all of it through extensions to the $13T-plus national debt underscores the point I made in yesterday's post about what Obama means by calling the GOP's deficit bluff next spring: they aren't serious about cutting spending, so all we'll hear from Obama is new taxes--just what the current economic malaise is waiting for!
Political Cartoon
The reason I selected this Steve Kelley cartoon is that it reminds me of an incident years ago when I was in a jury pool (eventually dismissed). At the time I was unemployed; I was trying to schedule job interviews not knowing if or when I would be available. I was living off my savings, and the paltry amount I made for serving barely covered my parking fees. On this occasion, while other prospective jurors and I waited patiently through the process, one businessman was visibly irate with the wait and vented over this was a ridiculous waste of his time and that what the government needs to do is to fill the juror pool with unemployed people because they have nothing better to do. And I thought to myself, it would serve you right, Mr. "Let them eat cake", to be tried by a jury of your unemployed "peers"... The condescending attitude of self-important people is found elsewhere, of course, particularly public employee unions whom seem to think they are entitled, intrinsically deserve employment protections, at taxpayer's expense, not available in the private sector. Never mind when private business revenues go down, they have to cut expenses; only the federal progressive Democrats, in their blissful "don't worry, be happy" spending sprees, spin old-fashioned government spending as a stimulus. Does Obama have the integrity or the will to stand up to public service unions? What happened to GM and Chrysler bondholders?
Quote of the Day
I run great risk of failing. It may be that I shall encounter ruin where I look for reputation and a career of honor. The chances are perhaps more in favour of ruin than of success. But, whatever may be the chances, I shall go on as long as any means of carrying on the fight are at my disposal.
Anthony Trollope
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1984
Lionel Richie, "Running With The Night"
Billy Joel, "Uptown Girl"
Bruce Springsteen, "Dancing in the Dark"
The Pointer Sisters, "I'm So Excited"
Stevie Wonder, "I Just Called To Say I Love You"
