A fellow named Matt Lewis, about whom I know nothing but JustOneMinute thinks him worth quoting, writes – perhaps hopefully – about –
the next great schism within the conservative movement. At issue is the war in Afghanistan – and, more specifically, whether Republicans should support President Obama’s approach to a conflict that has now lasted for Americans far longer than World War II.
The “great schism” is rather one-sided at the moment: Ann Coulter, Ron Paul and a handful of other, mostly erratic figures versus almost all Republican officeholders and a phalanx of the dexterosphere. The overwhelming view on the Right is that President Obama’s stated position on the war (who knows what he thinks in his heart?) is the best one for the country and that his choice of General Petraeus to conduct it is brilliant.
If you want to see a schism, the direction to look is Left. The President has proclaimed that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity”. The Vice President praises hard core proponents of immediate withdrawal.
It’s true that, when Michael Steele described Afghanistan as “Obama’s war”, he wasn’t being entirely irrational. President Bush emphasized winning in Iraq while merely holding the line in Afghanistan. That was certainly the right choice at the time. Iraq occupies a central position in the world’s largest energy producing region. Had Saddam Hussein remained in power there, his regime, WMD-possessing or not, would have continued to be a major source of funds and training for Islamofascists throughout the world. Had he been succeeded by al-Qa’eda’s “Islamic state” or a quisling government subservient to Iran, the consequences would have been yet more dire.
Afghanistan is, by comparison, a backwater. Diverting American power to this secondary theater, while the outcome in Iraq hung in the balance, would have been folly. As the saying goes, “He who fights everywhere, fights nowhere.”
Still, though a comparative backwater, Afghanistan isn’t unimportant. It borders on a decreasingly stable nuclear power (Pakistan), directly on two of the world’s leading anti-Western troublemakers (Iran and Red China) and indirectly (via three Central Asian republics) on Tsar Vladimir’s geopolitically ambitious Russia. An Islamofascist takeover would pressurize Pakistan toward an outright break with the West. A vacuum would likely be filled by one or more of our rivals or enemies. Now that Iraq is quieting down, we can channel resources to make secure this front.
We must bear in mind, too, that the President’s militant rhetoric has made Afghanistan more significant than it might otherwise be. Osama bin-Laden trumpeted American pullbacks from Lebanon and Somalia, where we were mere altruistic “peacekeepers”, as evidence of Western impotence. Cutting and running from a war that our commander-in-chief has labeled a vital national interest would prove to the mufsidun that Allah’s cause is on the verge of triumph.
If Barack Obama didn’t intend to win in Afghanistan, he was foolish to speak so boldly, but, foolish or not, we must now deal with the consequences of his words. That a lot of Democrats are indifferent doesn’t surprise me. If a significant fraction of conservatives and Republicans follow suit, that will be surprising and disappointing indeed.
Comments