Pretty funny stuff when Obama just added 2 to the list.

On Jun 25, 12:03 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> What Neocons Don't Understand About WarBy Conor Friedersdorf
> Jun 24 2011Politics shapes strategy in conflicts of choice -- which is 
> another reason to avoid themInNational Review,The Weekly Standard, and 
> theWashington Post, leading War on Terror hawks are expressing outrage at the 
> timeline President Obama set for troop reductions in Afghanistan. Their 
> complaint: politics is driving American policy. "So why September 2012?" Bill 
> Kristol writes. "Because, one has to conclude, Election Day is November 6, 
> 2012. The deadline will allow candidate Obama to say that he has completely 
> withdrawn the surge forces, and that we're on our way out of Afghanistan and 
> coming home. The timetable President Obama has set isn't based on military 
> considerations, diplomatic strategies, or financial calculations."
> Perhaps it's time to let these guys in on a secret: elected officials are 
> constantly playing politics. Even on matters of national security. As they 
> wage foreign wars, they concern themselves with the mood of the American 
> people, support for hostilities in Congress, and how troop levels might 
> affect their prospects for being re-elected. Almost inevitably, the strategy 
> and tactics they employ depend at least partly on all those factors, and 
> other political considerations besides.
> Most adults know this.
> For that reason, it's wise to refrain from waging wars of choice, a label 
> that arguably didn't apply to Afghanistan circa 2001, but certainly started 
> applying at some point over the last decade. When our safety isn't imminently 
> threatened, it is tempting to avoid the slaughter of our sons and daughters, 
> especially if it saves billions of dollars. It's tempting even when it isn't 
> militarily optimal.
> Guys like Kristol constantly urge us to undertake ever more wars of choice 
> anyway. It's as if they're blind to the fact that the American people tire of 
> adventures abroad on a timetable that doesn't correspond to however many 
> decades are required to prevail in them (if in fact winning is even 
> possible). A prudent decision-maker, weighing whether to launch or extend a 
> foreign war, would presume the eventual war weariness of the populace, and 
> the political nature of presidents.
> Kristol and those who trust his foreign policy judgment aren't prudent 
> decision-makers. In their telling, the US would've prevailed if only we stuck 
> it out longer in Vietnam. Islamist extremists wouldn't have been emboldened 
> if only we'd stuck it out in Beirut. Iraq would've gone better if only we'd 
> invested in a bigger military during the 1990s and sent more troops in 
> earlier. We'd win all our wars of choice if only Americans would give 
> neo-cons a blank check, unlimited troops, and no deadline! That the 
> conditions they deem necessary for victory are fantastical doesn't bother 
> them.
> It doesn't help that their desire to wage new wars causes them to mislead the 
> American people about how long victory might take. Here's Bill Kristol on 
> October 1, 2001: "Saddam Hussein, because of his strategic position in the 
> Persian Gulf and the Middle East, surely represents a more potent challenge 
> to the United States and its interests and principles than the weak, 
> isolated, and we trust, soon-to-be crushed Taliban. And unlike the Taliban, 
> Saddam Hussein may soon have at his disposal not only terrorist networks, but 
> biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons."
> Here he is on November 26, 2001: "WITH THE TALIBAN DISLODGED and Osama bin 
> Laden increasingly shorn of allies, the endgame seems to be in sight in 
> Afghanistan." It's no wonder the American people are war weary and uninclined 
> to trust the assurances of hawks that we just need to stay a little bit 
> longer - but without any timetable for withdrawal - to assure American 
> victory. They've been telling us for a decade that victory is just over the 
> next hill. Why trust them 
> now?http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/what-neocons-dont-know-about-war/240956/

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to