It's a response to Crooks and Liars' disgusting moral equivalence on President Obama's Afghan surge, "And Thirty Years Ago This Month Somebody Else Had A Great Idea About Afghanistan":
But here's William's analysis:
The Crooks and Liars' blogger asserts that the Soviets thought the invasion was "what the Afghan people wanted." But in fact the Soviet invasion had nothing to do with any real concern for what the Afghan people wanted, just as the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were not out of concern for what those peoples wanted. A good discussion of the Soviet Afghan invasion is here.Actually, yes, these bloggers would prefer a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan, because for them, we're no better than the old Soviet Union, which was the "Evil Empire," in President Reagan's unequivocal, immemorial words.
There is no legitimate comparison between the Soviet attempt to prop up the Communist military government it had installed in Afghanistan, and the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks. By removing the repressive Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda elements, the U.S. responded to a direct attack and the likelihood of future attacks. A restoration of Taliban rule would be a direct threat to the U.S., not to mention a blow to the Afghan people.
There are legitimate criticisms of Obama's strategy and speech to be made. But snide comparisons of Obama's decision on troop levels to Brezhnev's decision to invade also are not legitimate.
But then again, perhaps that blogger would prefer an Afghanistan which served again as a base for worldwide terrorism and attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad. Although it would be harder to write snark about that.
3 comments:
Mr. Douglas,
You are being very disingenuous here. The Crooks And Liars piece to which you refer made no moral equivalence between the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and ours; it was a comment on the likely military outcome.
That is a fair comment, I think. You may not agree with their analysis, but the results of the Soviet invasion are well worth considering when we think about where we are now. History always has something to teach us, if we are willing to listen.
Mr. Eagle,
I disagree. The piece did make false comparisons in indicating that the Soviets believed their invasion was "what the people wanted." The likely military outcome is not comparable either, based on the facts. There was no significant support from Afghanis for the Soviet invasion; the same cannot be said to be true for the US invasion.
History needs to be correctly interpreted before it can teach anybody anything. When the Soviets invaded, the Afghanis had our support and our shoulder-fired missiles that brought down so many Russian helicopters. The Taliban has no such support.
The only real factor that will lead to victory or defeat in Afghanistan is the will to win. Unfortunately, the current occupant of the White House has no such will.
Yes, history has something to teach ... teach the critics of the previous Administration, that is.
Mr. Bush wisely realized that the war in Afghanistan could not be fought by "flooding the zone" with forces a la the Powell Doctrine and waging a Soviet-style conventional war ... and realized that this war would have to be fought as a long-duration, low-intensity conflict.
The critics -- apparently ignorant of the Soviet example -- excoriated him for doing so, accusing him of "ignoring" Afghanistan while prosecuting that second war in Iraq they considered "unecessary" ... the war that prevented Iraq from becoming a wealthy, high-tech Afghanistan 2.0.
Now, one of those critics is going through the motions of going down Mr. Bush's path ... though that critic still appears to be missing the critical element that will make the difference between victory and defeat, regardless of the number of resources applied: the RESOLVE to see this conflict through until AQ and the Taliban are reduced to insignificance, with strong, principled governments in place in Afghanistan and Pakistan to prevent them from becoming significant in the future.
Instead, we get a "date certain" ... a date certain for the resurgence of our enemies, who have the patience to wait us out.
The real problem in Afghanistan was never Bush's "apathy" towards it ... the real problem is its next-door neighbor, who until very recently was more interested in proving it is not an American puppet than it was in effectively interdicting terror that threatens its own governance, along with life and liberty in the rest of the world.
The safe havens it allowed within its borders have made this war longer and harder than it need be ... hopefully now, Pakistan and the anti-terror forces in Afghanistan can squeeze the Taliban and AQ between themselves and put an end to their ability to foment acts of war.
But we must never forget, it all boils down to RESOLVE ... and we must demand that from our leaders.
Post a Comment