Actions, it is said, speak louder than words. But words still matter, and two of them have been willingly abandoned by the Obama administration and the American left: “war” and “victory.”
Obama’s speech on Afghanistan was his latest–and perhaps his worst–”present” vote to date. It was a politically calculated sop designed to placate both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives get their “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan–but with 25% less troops than requested. Liberals get their timetable for withdrawal–but it contains a “conditions on the ground” caveat.
The troops? Once again, they get screwed.
Since Vietnam, the American left has determined to do everything in its power to prevent our military from achieving victory. Today we are in a “conflict”–with an announced withdrawal date. It is against an enemy whose command center is known to be in Pakistan. We have the capacity to take out that center–but refuse to do so, lest it offends our Pakistani “allies.” We bribe those allies with billions of dollars to put up a fight against their fellow countrymen–with whom, as fellow Sharia Law-loving, hate-the-infidel Muslims, half of them sympathize.
No doubt a relentless carpet-bombing campaign in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province would produce civilian casualties. But one has to wonder: if given the choice between dead American soldiers and dead Pakistani civilians–plus dead terrorist commanders–which casualties would the American left prefer? And spare me the “neither” choice because it’s not an option: every day this war goes on, American troops remain in harm’s way.
There are many who say “victory” against terror cannot be defined. Oh, yes it can. Breaking the will of international terrorists, destroying their capacity to fund operations, killing as many of them as possible–and making it clear to the Muslim world in general that a “clash of civilizations” is fatal for them would be a great place to start.
Unfortunately, such is impossible with a “due date” for the cessation of American hostility. It’s impossible when we strain to overlook the reality that Muslim “moderates” are nothing more than fence-sitters waiting to see who rides the stronger horse. Wrong? If Islamo-fascists were actually able to achieve their visions of a worldwide caliphate, does anyone seriously believe there would be a moderate Muslim resistance movement to re-instate Western culture?
It is this willful denial of what we are up against that animates most liberals and more than a few conservatives as well. It is a thumb-in-the-dike approach for which our men and women in uniform are paying the ultimate price.
It’s easy for politicians in Washington D.C. to take this “high-minded” approach. But pardon me for wondering if a week “in country,” weighed down by body armor, a backpack, a weapon–and the mind-numbing Rules of Engagement–would engender a change of heart from the men and women who have the absolute gall to call such an ordeal an “overseas contingency operation.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews epitomized such an attitude on his TV show. He wondered if Obama’s choice of West Point as the venue for his speech had taken the president into the “enemy camp,” implying that soldiers per se are a necessary, but politically incorrect, evil.
Such odious cynicism underscores the left’s half-way approach to war. If all soldiers are part of the enemy camp, what’s the big deal if we lose a few American ones in order to “win the hearts and minds” of moderate Muslims–or to placate the American left’s aversion to all-out fighting?
If we’re going to turn American troops into community organizers, perhaps we should send ACORN to Afghanistan.
atahlert@comcast.net
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here
