Steele does his impression of a stopped clock: "Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."...
"It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
Of course there were heads exploding on the GOP side. What else is new? This is what they signed on for when they decided they had to have a black RNC Chair, no matter what--just another bit of proof that racism makes you stupid. But consider what's happened on the Democratic/progressive side. As Glenn Greenwald points out, there's been far too much aping of Bush/Rovism.
Yes, it's true that we already were in Afghanistan. But it was still Obama's war of choice. It was up to Obama, and he freely chose to make Afghanistan the new focus of the GWOT, rather than calling the whole thing off as the counter-productive delusion--ala fighting fire with gasoline--that it actually is. It is Obama's war of choice, and it is historically idiotic--though by a few more thousand years than Steele seems to realize. So Steele was actually right on two counts.
It was, after all, Obama who proudly proclaimed that he was against "dumb wars", remember? And what could be dumber than going to war in the country where empires go to die? And so when Obama started saying that Iraq was the wrong war, and Afghanistan the right one, plenty of people were justifiably confused. And being confused--plus with John McCain looking to start WWIII with Russia (fergodsakes!)--most folks didn't try to figure things out too hard. Most simply assumed it was campaign window dressing, a defense against being called "weak", a promise easily morphed into something more sensible once he got into office, etc., etc., etc.
Well, of course, it turned out that Obama was even less of a progressive on foreign policy than just about anything else (on civil liberties, call it a tie). So, here to remind folks of what a real progressive alternative might look like, on the flip, I'm republishing a diary I first published at My Left Wing in 2005, and that I republished here on January 4, 2009, as "Crafting A Democratic Plan To Win The War On Terror".
As you read it, one thing should be abundantly clear: Unlike Obama's "plan" (whatever that may be), it's a plan based on ideas, not a self-defeating defensive posture of trying to not look weak. Real toughness lies in standing up for sound and moral ideas, rather than running away and/or pandering. As Greenwald wrote:
Generally, when progressives demand that Democrats be "tougher," what they mean is in defense of progressive policies, not in defense of endless war in Afghanistan. It'd be one thing if the DNC came out this forcefully in attacking Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, or legal immunity for torture, or cutting Social Security while maintaining bloated defense spending, or a failure to stimulate the economy sufficiently, etc. But here, they're acting "tough" in order to stigmatize war opposition and equate questioning of American wars with cowardice and Troop disrespect. I don't quite think that's what progressives have in mind when they urge the Party to be more aggressive.
What should we be fighting for? My answer from 2005 is on the flip.
|
