The United States is a uniquely exceptional country in the world and always has been. Take the former Soviet Union as an example of how superior the US. is. The Soviets were silly enough to allow communist authoritarians to rule over them. The U.S., on the other hand, is a much more advanced society in which only corporate oligarchs can be our authoritarian rulers. The U.S. is a Christian nation and the former Soviets were only godless atheists bound for hell.
The Soviets were foolish enough to invade Afghanistan in 1979 where they experienced a nine year quagmire of futility, and then left in 1989, not able to complete their mission of defeating the cave-dwelling Mujahideen. It is widely held that the Soviets foolish adventure in Afghanistan led directly to their disintegration as a superpower.
The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and are still experiencing a quagmire of futility 8 years later in what has been declared an attempt to defeat a medieval-Islamic group called the Taliban.
See? We're superior to the former Soviet Union. We're smarter. We don't make the same mistakes the godless atheists did.
The issue before the new American President is what to do now as we start our 9th year of quagmire. Having appeared 13 times so far this year on the Villager Sunday teevee morning shows, President John McCain, unelected but entitled to make our military decisions because….well…just because…..had this to say yesterday to Obama as 31 congressional members met with the elected President Obama to exchange ideas on our Afghan quagmire…..
Mr. McCain told the president that “time is not on our side.” He added, “This should not be a leisurely process,” according to several people in the room.
A few minutes later, Mr. Obama replied, “John, I can assure you this won’t be leisurely,” according to several attendees. “No one feels more urgency to get this right than I do.”
..[..]..
After the meeting, Mr. McCain warned against any middle ground. “Half measures is what I worry about,” he said. Citing the Bush administration’s experience in Iraq, he added that half measures “lead to failure over time and an erosion of American public support.”
Anyone remember the unelected President McCain chiding the genuinely-unelected President Bush about "half-measures" or "leisurely" approaches to Afghanistan when the genuinely-unelected President Bush was defrauding America into a new war of choice? Anyone?
More President McCain after the meeting….
McCain warns: "There's been this argument that the threat now is not Al Qaeda … The fact is, we all know that if the Taliban come back, Al Qaeda will come back. And they will come back in Afghanistan and they will come back in Pakistan."
The unelected President McCain's speciality is military strategy and foreign policy….and when it comes to those specialities, McCain is really, really smart. As Digby points out from this report….
The Taliban now has a permanent presence in 80% of Afghanistan, up from 72% in November 2008, according to a new map released today by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS). According to ICOS, another 17% of Afghanistan is seeing ‘substantial’ Taliban activity. Taken together, these figures show that the Taliban has a significant presence in virtually all of Afghanistan.
President McCain: "if the Taliban comes back"…..umm, Maverick, they're back. And what of al-Qaeda whom Johnny Mac said emphatically, "will come back", if, you know, the Taliban comes back?
The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.
"I do not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan now," McChrystal told reporters at the Dutch Defense Ministry, where he met military officials.
NSA Chief, James Jones, Oct 6, 2009….
He said that according to the maximum estimate, al-Qaida has fewer than 100 fighters operating in Afghanistan without any bases or ability to launch attacks on the West.
Whatever the Villager Choir and the Just Say No GOP Chorus have been, and will be, singing near term about al-Qaeda coming back if the Taliban comes back……it simply is not so.
There may be legitimate reasons to continue to strike at the skeletal remains of al-Qaeda inside Afghanistan…..but the "return of the Taliban" is not one of them.
We need to remove as many troops from Afghanistan as soon as we can, even if the Afghanis choose to support the already-returned Taliban. Our mission was to destroy the al-Qaeda network. We've made great progress towards fulfilling that mission.
We won't do any of that, of course, because we, unlike the former Soviets, are uniquely exceptional. Even when we make tragic mistakes, we don't. So, expect the same hew and cry from the neo-conservatives and the same braying from the military-industrial complex supporters in Congress…..and a continuation of a no-end-in-sight quagmire in Afghanistan accompanied with loud cheerleading about how we're "going to win."
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
McCain was elected to the Senate, Reverend. He's also an American citizen so until you fascists get more power he'll retain his freedom of speech.
No one suggested that President McCain doesn't have the right to say what he wants.
Just once, I would appreciate a conservative rebuttal of the focus of my blog posts.
I realize "we are all Georgians now"…or whatever the hell the stupidity-du-jour is….but I'm wondering about the veracity of President McCain's knee-jerk comments. He's doing his best job of smearing Obama, a continuation of his non-stop lying campaign last fall…..but does he have to ignorantly make stuff up all the time?
It's getting too hard to swim through all the silliness and find whatever the focus of your posts are, lately, Reverend.
Is your focus based on the theory that al Qaeda won't come back in Afghanistan because they are presently out of the country, having relocated all the way over in western Pakistan? That would be kind of laughable.
OK, Reverand, the focus of your post is to make fun of McCain (and Bush, in passing) by repeatedly refering to him as "the unelected President". Rebuttal is unnecessary, so let's grade your style.
First, your attempt at irony is too strained. Your post also fails as satire. On the positive side you do earn a few points for resisting the temptation to use (as you do all too often) vulgarity.
I grade it as a "C". Of course, as you know, I grade conservatively
McCain was actually a footnote in the post, kind of like the occasional smiley face sticker.
Neo-cons would militarily invade and occupy a Toyota Prius if they could make enough Americans afraid of it. Just like with Iraq, the warmongers rationale for "surging" Afghanistan is irrational, the facts don't line up with the pre-conceived bloodthirstiness.
Bush/Cheney led the country into accepting a completely phony construct. "We must kill the terrorists and those that harbor them." The Taliban had no more to do with "harboring" al-Qaeda than Germany did in "harboring" Mohammed Atta. Like everything with the Terror Twins….this is a bogus argument. And we're still operating under that false premise.
We do not have the right to occupy another country with our military forces. Islamic extremism is an international police enforcement issue, always has been.
larry….we're getting out of Iraq, will extremists "come back" into Iraq from nearby Saudi Arabia and Iran?
Quid….hey, go easy, this is a pro-bono gig. And what's all this queasiness about vulgarity? I use profanity, not vulgarity. And I will continue to do so.
Vulgarity is lying about a threat so 4400 U.S. soldiers get murdered. Vulgarity is instituting a policy of evil torture. The scope of vulgarity is much broader than my occasional use of the extremely popular word…f*ck.
Let's start out by saying the Reverend used to be in favor of the Afghanistan War (he was for it before he was against it. Hmmm. Sounds familiar).
Rev asks, "Anyone remember the unelected President McCain chiding the genuinely-unelected President Bush about "half-measures" or "leisurely" approaches to Afghanistan when the genuinely-unelected President Bush was defrauding America into a new war of choice? Anyone?"
Bush was elected twice, and McCain DID chide Bush for underplaying the Iraq war. Here's McCain in 2006:
"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required. Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be"…McCain said such talk "has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/22/politics/main1925359.shtml
—
Rev says, "President John McCain, unelected but entitled to make our military decisions because….well…just because…..had this to say yesterday to Obama"
McCain is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to give you clue #1 as to why McCain speaks on these subjects. McCain doesn't make "our military decisions," as you falsely stated, but he has input into them. You act like he has no right, which is why larry correctly pointed out your silly anti-free speech bilge. McCain is also on the Intelligence Committee, to provide a clue #2 to your clueless world.
—
The Taliban has a presence in Afghanistan, but they are not ruling it as they did prior to our invasion. Al Qaeda also made a home in Afghanistan prior to our invasion. McCain is stating the obvious – if we leave that country without leaving behind a strong government capable of maintaining control, the Taliban could return to power, and then Al Qaeda would return to Afghanistan. I guess the Reverend has problems with the obvious.
And finally, because Obama, subsequent to McCain's comments and after being advised by other military experts, said we aren't leaving Afghanistan, that reinforces what McCain said, so your entire post is superfluous, and designed only to find something or anything to complain about Republicans over, which is your modus operandi.
Did that rebut the "thrust of your post" adequately ?
P.S. – Quidpro was very kind to give you a grade of C.
Quite the contrary.
The subject country was Afghanistan…not Iraq. Go find a McCain quote where he chides Bush for "leisurely" leaving Afghanistan….then I'll take your objection seriously.
The "President McCain" snipes were intended to highlight the 13 appearances by McCain on the, you know, "liberal" Sunday talk shows. McCain, a proven dunderhead and serial liar, is the "serious" voice ("we're all Georgians now") of Republicans on national defense, and the Villagers suck-up to that utter foolishness. As I told larry, freedom of McCain speech is not the issue.
And obviously you have difficulty with discernment. The Taliban occupies 80% of Afghanistan NOW….and yet al-Qaeda is down to maybe 100 fighters inside the country. So, McCain's, and your, premise holds no water.
If the criteria for militarily occupying a country is the chance that al-Qaeda may find a presence there…..then why don't we occupy Somalia, Yemen, Germany….hell, the entire world?
What kind of logical thought processes would lead you to conclude that just because Obama says we're not leaving Afghanistan, in concurrence with McCain…means it's the correct and rational thing to do? I just demonstrated that it's not.
Footnote: Libertarians and conservatives are now the "nation-building" liberals.
Rev says, "Go find a McCain quote where he chides Bush for "leisurely" leaving Afghanistan….then I'll take your objection seriously."
Okay. Here's McCain in 2008:
"We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis."
McCain isn't saying anything different than he's said in the past.
Rev says, " McCain, a proven dunderhead and serial liar"
Why don't you just shut the fuck up ? You're an asshole. Stop it.
Rev says, "If the criteria for militarily occupying a country is the chance that al-Qaeda may find a presence there…..then why don't we occupy Somalia, Yemen, Germany….hell, the entire world?"
Well gee, let's see. Maybe it's because AL QAEDA WAS OPERATING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN ON 9/11. THAT'S WHERE BIN LADEN WAS. How can you be this dense ???????????????
Rev says, "What kind of logical thought processes would lead you to conclude that just because Obama says we're not leaving Afghanistan, in concurrence with McCain…means it's the correct and rational thing to do? I just demonstrated that it's not."
Excuse me, but I didn't see where you demostrated anything at all. But maybe you know more than Obama, McCain, our generals, and all the intelligence capabilities of the U.S. and the civilized world. Yes, I imagine that's possible………..but it's very, very doubtful.
Still no "leisurely" McCain accusations of Bush over Afghanistan.
Some 65% of Americans agree we should end our occupation of Afghanistan.
So, your complaint is that McCain never used the exact word "leisurely" ? Yes, that's important. NOT.
Isn't it interesting that liberals claimed to support the Afghanistan war (the good war) for all this time, and now they suddenly want out ? Such people of conviction. Is there anything liberals won't lie about ?
Liberals supported retaliation against those who planned and carried out the horrible 9-11 event. That was not the Taliban. Yes, liberals wanted revenge on al-Qaeda enemies….but it was Bush/Cheney who declared war on those "who harbor" al-Qaeda…..not liberals.
Now, because of the confusion created by Bush/Cheney over who the enemy is….we are hopelessly bogged down in an ill-defined quagmire of occupation.
Congratulations to Obama for trying to thoughtfully clear up the confusion.
I think I saw a picture of McCain wearing a leisure suit once. Does that count?
Only if he was in a disco with Bush at the time.
Excuse me, Rev, but I was under the impression that Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the Afghanistan War, and that Obama continually voiced his support for that "war of necessity" on the campaign trail last year, and that liberals bemoaned the fact that Iraq took all the necessary assets away from the "good war" in Afghanistan for the last six years.
But thanks for cluing me in to the latest liberal reinvention of history.
The reason for going to Afghanistan was to destroy those who planned and carried out the attack against us. Isn't that right?
The Taliban didn't plan nor carry out the 9-11 event. They oversaw the government of the country where al-Qaeda was holed-up.
Democrats weren't crazy…..of course we had to go after those who killed 3000 Americans. But Bush/Cheney were crazy….and their intent from the beginning was to amass our military resources in close enough proximity to Iraq, so that they would be ready when the ole' switcheroo came.
8 years later, the focus of the discussion should be honed down to "who is the enemy?" And it ain't the Taliban. No reinvention…..reality.
So, you're perfectly fine with Obama and the Dems reinvention of history.
Figures. I prefer people who don't lie their ass off.