Conventional Wisdom Watch
| Tue Oct. 27, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
Mainstream hawkish pundits rarely have a change of heart that leads them fully into the withdrawal camp. They'll often get to the point where they hem and haw a bit, explaining all the downsides of continued engagement and the longs odds against success, but then they'll conclude with either a reluctant insistence that we have to keep on fighting anyway, or else a murky affirmation that there's no good choice to be had, just a least bad one.
But Afghanistan is changing that. Tom Friedman has now joined George Will in flatly recommending that we leave. "China, Russia and Al Qaeda all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan," he says today. "I don't." The conventional wisdom is slowly but surely shifting before our eyes.
So who will be the next bigfoot pundit to jump ship? Vote in comments.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
These guys are usually wrong.
They always ask for us to fight.
So... Should we fight when they say we shouldn't?
Certainly, where and how our troops are there aren't helping. We need more civilian oversight of what they're doing and what use it has politically. What we don't need is thousands of more dead afghanis due to having no boots on the ground.
Who's next to say vote with our feet - Brooks.
Submitted by PT (not verified) on Tue Oct. 27, 2009 10:43 PM PDT.
Either he will take a short shot at something Krugman has proven with facts or he'll start out venting about Wall Street and then say we could pay for all the bailouts by pulling our forces out of the whole middle east and let them figure out how to do their thing on their own dime.
pundits
Submitted by supersaurus (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 1:30 AM PDT.
if both friedman and will want to get out I might have to rethink it, but hopefully they aren't wrong just because they agree with me.
maybe modo will be next, she is a fountain of insight.
I am definitely against any
Submitted by sjw (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 3:30 AM PDT.
I am definitely against any increase. Any -- even an increase of one. The Biden approach makes sense to me: a very limited presence to ensure that terrorists don't come back in power and to take on limited, focused missions. But honestly, I wouldn't mind at all if we cut and ran. We could have succeeded years ago, but we took the resources needed to complete the job and put them in Iraq. Now it's money and men down the rat hole.
Would Will still be
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 3:30 AM PDT.
Would Will still be advocating withdrawal if a Republican administration was involved? Not at all clear that his disapproval isn't just more partisanship.
Different drummer
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 5:31 AM PDT.
I vote for Kevin Drum.
The pundits won't decide the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 5:49 AM PDT.
The pundits won't decide the outcome. The phony bipartisanship that equates to the dems needing to show they are as strong as Republicans on defense will keep us mired in Afghanistan. The dems won't sacrifice power for integrity or a different vision. The same dems that voted with Bush to invade Iraq will keep the boots on the ground or six feet under. Sucks, eh? Change is just another word.
Was that the long tie George Will?
Submitted by B on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 6:10 AM PDT.
I don't know what the big time pundits are saying anymore. Well, no, I take that back, George Will thinks marijuana is getting better or something . . . but for all I know O'Reilly and Beck are for pulling out of Afghanistan and investigating John Yoo. They at least have to be questioning it considering Obama's position.
Troops
Submitted by rbe1 (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 6:11 AM PDT.
I believe we shoud reassign the forces we have in Afghanistan to a series of bases from which operations against AQ terrorists can be executed. I also believe that the troops of the NATO coalition should be prepared to assist Afghani troops upon request with any operations the government there deems necessary to stability of the country. I do not believe we should expand our presence there because we haven't succeeded in any significant way in reducing the level of violence in the country, and we are not going to win any friends by throwing our weight around the way we have been so far.
You broke it, you own it.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 7:36 AM PDT.
You broke it, you own it.
Maybe we could bargain with the Taliban to leave in exchange for amnesty for those Afghans who supported us. Alternatively, the Obama administration seems to be leaning against free speech, so maybe we could just leave and make it a crime to report beheadings. Reporting beheading is, after all, "hate speech," since it may de facto sully the "reputations" of Afghan-Americans.
Bin Laden is laughing. He's
Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 8:12 AM PDT.
Bin Laden is laughing. He's just patiently waiting for the U.S. troops to leave and then it's back to business: establishing safe havens and training camps to prepare and plan for the next attack, regardless of a small Biden footprint of special forces. Those special forces can't cover vast areas of territory and can't handle an onslaught of Taliban/AQ fighters head-on.
It's no suprise that liberals want to get out. It's disheartening to hear a conservative pundit to agree.
It's like the pundits forgot why we invaded in the first place.
more wisdom from the chicken hawk crowd
Submitted by junebug on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 9:03 AM PDT.
If this is making bin Laden laugh, he must've been rolling on the floor when the wrecking crew in the last administration hatched their brilliant plan to get mired down in Iraq. So tell us, smart guy -- who forgot the importance of Afghanistan?
bin Laden is laughing at you
Submitted by tpx on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 10:25 AM PDT.
Bin Laden is laughing at you for thinking bombing civilians has done anything to stop political terrorism as a response to US imperialism.
My 2 cents
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 8:16 AM PDT.
Next in line: D. Brooks
Last in line: M. O'Hanlon (if bigfoot enough)
Unless the pres fashions a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 8:18 AM PDT.
Unless the pres fashions a strategy that includes (at a min) both Pakistan and Afghanistan (and ideally India and Iran) then there is no reason to commit more troops.
Next pundit is obvious: KO in a "special comment"
Read it again
Submitted by Dave Schuler (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 8:39 AM PDT.
Tom Friedman has now joined George Will in flatly recommending that we leave
Kevin, you might want to read it again. That isn't what he wrote. What he wrote is that we shouldn't increase our forces there.
Will is saying this just so
Submitted by cld (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 9:40 AM PDT.
Will is saying this just so
a) he can then turn around and say the Democrats 'lost' Afghanistan, and,
b) so when we do withdraw he'll be able to think he's been right about one thing in his whole dumb life.
Buy Them
Submitted by PK (not verified) on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 10:47 AM PDT.
Yesterday over at Yglesias someone mentioned Steve Clemons' statement: "with the money we're pouring into Afganistan, we could just buy the place". To which a commenter added that we should offer the Taliban a fixed price for all the opium. As their largest customer, we demand that Al Qaeda get the boot.
They're not Islamic hard-liners, they're illiterate drug lords with lots of guns.
Taliban should use their opium money to buy Congress
Submitted by tpx on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 10:55 AM PDT.
The Taliban should use their opium money to buy Congress and impose Sharia law on the US.
"If this is making bin Laden
Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 11:23 AM PDT.
"If this is making bin Laden laugh, he must've been rolling on the floor when the wrecking crew in the last administration hatched their brilliant plan to get mired down in Iraq. So tell us, smart guy -- who forgot the importance of Afghanistan?"
He was rolling on the floor of his cave, cut off from his camps and terrorists, thanks to the last administration.
He will be back with his BFFs, planning his next attack, thanks to this administration.
FYI: since Bin Laden is believed to be in Pakistan, the troops that were pulled from Afghanistan and placed in Iraq were of little consequence since our troops are not allowed in Pakistan.
Always blaming Bush, aren't we?
So when is Obama going to get him? After he pulls out of Afghanistan? Will Obama lure Bin Laden out of hiding with his bright and shiny Nobel Peace Prize?
Last administration the
Submitted by B on Wed Oct. 28, 2009 2:41 PM PDT.
Last administration the Pakistani army was sitting on it's butt. This administration the Pakistani army is kicking ass in the tribal territories. I think Bin Laden is a little more worried now, if he's still alive.
PS -- put some more wit into it, sockpuppet. Your stuff is a little off today.
So when is Obama going to get him?
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 7:10 AM PDT.
As soon as John McCain finds an gap in his busy schedule of TV appearances to clue him in.
Fatuous Friedman
Submitted by bob h (not verified) on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 6:59 AM PDT.
"China, Russia and Al Qaeda all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan,"
I somehow doubt this is the case with China and Russia. We are China's biggest customer, and both China and Russia have potential problems with militant Islam. Neither will be glad to see Talibanization spread to Xianjiang or Takijistan.
Talibanization is spreading because of US policy, not despite it
Submitted by tpx on Thu Oct. 29, 2009 7:31 AM PDT.
Talibanization is spreading to Xianjiang and Takijistan and other parts of the world because of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US.
Fool's errand?
Submitted by rimchamp77 on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 8:54 AM PDT.
Why is it that GW never voiced any strategy whatsoever for victory? Why is it that GW made absolutely no attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden - much less hold him for trial [where he would be acquitted for lack of evidence - a double 4 letter word for "conservatives"?]? I agree. When you pick a fight with the Taliban - for permitting a known criminal suspect to reside within its borders in a secluded barely accessible region - instead of going directly against Al Qaeda and ignoring the Taliban [extradition papers for Osama would have provided a cover for troop deployment], you should not be taken seriously as "protector of the country against terrorists".
Obama has rescinded absolutely nothing in the failed policies of GW Bush. We still can abduct civilians and hold them indefinitely with impunity - although liberals may delude themselves that this nice talking "reasonable" leader surely won't do so. We renewed the anti Patriot Act with little controversy. We still hide the existence of any prisoner abuses of people abducted without legal justification whatsoever. We still reserve the right to spy on people based on secret evidence based on the "national security" ruse. We still have a pro crime drug policy that is responsible for all sorts of violent crime, drug problems and public corruption of epic proportions. This policy bankrolls all of our sleazy "clients" and our "enemies". This ensures a continued violence that justifies more severe and abusive expansion of government.
How can we impose a democracy in Afghanistan while simultaneously attacking individual freedom on an epic scale in our own country? Why should Afghanis and Iraqis aspire to the ideals of a country with more prisoners per capita than any other country? Why should they covet a justice system that protects criminal activities in their own country - when conducted by foreign soldiers or contractors? Ditto for Iraq!
Look first at the plank in your own eye before obsessing over the splinter in the eye of your neighbor! Thus spoke a revered Islamic prophet and noted Jewish reformer. Why should a "Christian nation" pay heed to this heretic?
May God's will be done on earth and let it begin - and end - with myself. If it happens any other way it's not God's will.
Canada is pulling out
Submitted by Carbon Sink (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 5:46 PM PDT.
Canada has been in Afghanistan since the very beginning and they've set a deadline of 2011: they say they'll pull out after that.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
