Often, the truth and importance of a statement is proportional to the uproar over its utterance. We saw this recently when Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) apologized to BP for the White House “shakedown.” Republican leaders immediately forced Rep. Barton to apologize. (“BP Chief on Hot Seat,” WSJ.com, June 18, 2010.)
The Republican leadership apparently thought the concept that the rule of law should prevail was too subtle for the public to understand. The leadership underestimated the public’s capacity to distinguish between concern over the White House’s highly questionable establishment of the BP claims fund and endorsement of BP’s actions. It sacrificed principle for superficial politics.
Now, the Wall Street Journal reports “Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele faced calls for his resignation from within his own party Friday after he described the war in Afghanistan as ‘a war of Obama’s choosing’ and suggested the U.S. mission there is unwinnable.” Naturally, Mr. Steele backtracked on his remarks. (“Republicans Attack Steele Over Afghan-War Comments,” WSJ.com, July 3, 2010.)
As the Journal’s article notes, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, reacted. He posted “A Letter to Michael Steele” defending the war and claiming that Mr. Steele’s statement put him “at odds with about 100 percent of the Republican Party.” (WeeklyStandard.com, July 2, 2010.)
The War Is Futile, Illegitimate, and Counter-Productive
Just as Rep. Barton was correct that the Obama administration had engaged in a “shakedown” of BP, Mr. Steele is right that the war is futile. The Republican Party should admit this truth, and acknowledge that the U.S. has blundered into a foolish nation building effort.
(As to Mr. Steele’s reference to the war being “of Obama’s choosing,” this apparently was intended to convey the fact that Pres. Obama has adopted the war and expanded it. The expression is consistent with prior commentary. Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that Pres. Obama has declared, “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.” Dr. Haass, in distinguishing between wars of choice and necessity, concludes, “Afghanistan is thus a war of choice — Mr. Obama’s war of choice.” [“In Afghanistan, the Choice Is Ours,” New York Times, Aug. 20, 2009.])
The war is futile because, except in exceptional circumstances not present in Afghanistan, nation building is always futile. The war is illegitimate because it is immoral for the U.S. to endeavor to reshape a country to its advantage at the point of a gun. The war is pointless because terrorism is not geographically bound; terrorists can simply hide or move to a different country.
The war is counter-productive because it is creating bitterness among people who naturally resent the occupation and aggression by a foreign government. It is additionally counter-productive because it is breeding corruption, and likely funding terrorists through money that is diverted. (See “Corruption Suspected in Airlift of Billions in Cash From Kabul,” WSJ.com, June 25, 2010. The article notes the likely diversion of funds and widespread corruption. The inference of likely leakage of funds to terrorists is my own.)
The Republican Party Should Oppose the War
Conservatives, including the purportedly conservative Republican Party, should oppose the war. Consider the March 2010 statement by Rep. John Duncan (R-TN), linked in a post by Malou Innocent of the Cato Institute, as to why “there is nothing conservative about the war.” (“Conservatives and Afghanistan,” Cato@Liberty, Cato.org, March 17, 2010.)
Rep. Duncan notes that conservatives oppose welfare, debt, and overspending, which are all part of the war. He also argues that the war is unconstitutional, since the Constitution does not provide for “running another country.”
Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute notes that the U.S. quickly achieved its objectives in its invasion of Afghanistan: “weaken or destroy Al Qaeda, which had attacked America; oust the Taliban, which had given Al Qaeda refuge; warn other regimes that cooperating with terrorists would leave them out of power.” Mr. Bandow urges the U.S. to now pursue “[a] narrow focus on counterterrorism,” rather than rebuilding the country. (“From Good War to Bad Social Engineering,” Cato.org, March 22, 2010.)
……..
Michael Steele made a statement of truth and importance. The Republican Party’s continued endorsement of the war is not conservative, not wise, not intelligent, and not in the interests of the U.S. or Afghanistan.
