Being the anti-war candidate isn't easy

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Random thoughts about winning candidacies with an anti-war component...

Wilson ran for re-election on "He kept us out of war."

Promptly entered WWI.

Eisenhower ran on "I will go to Korea" (to get peace negotiations back on track and end the war)

Ended Korean War. (By convincing China he just might nuke them, then accepting the same peace terms that had been on the table for a year.)

Nixon ran on ending the Vietnam War.

He did... years later... after widening the war to include Cambodia. (Nixon tried Eisenhower's "mad bomber" ploy but a nuclear threat was less credible in 1969. In the early 1950s we had nuked somebody in very recent memory and had clear nuke superiority vs. the USSR. Nukes were not yet unthinkable. Nixon did not follow Eisenhower's example of just accepting whatever peace deal was available, and stretched the thing out forever seeking "Peace with honor")


Don't let nobody tell you this stuff is easy. Fortunately for Obama (and everyone else) by 2008-2009 the Iraq War had already ground almost to a halt. The Obama plan (and Clinton plan) ended up being about the same as the Bush plan. Only McCain wanted to stay. So winding down Iraq is easy.

But Afghanistan is not easy. No good options. In a sense Obama campaigned on increasing our commitment in Afghanistan (eye-on-the-ball) but also campaigned on being smart and not stubborn, so he is in a difficult spot. (Particularly since everyone who was opposed to the war in Afghanistan voted for him.)

Essentially, Obama is in the Nixon bind... running to end a war by winning it. But if winning wars in Afghanistan was easy everybody would be doing it.

I have no certain opinion. I generally trust Obama to do something sane. But I also share the anxiety that we will remain committed in Afghanistan to fulfill a largely political campaign stance that arose from needing to fit the successful Republican frame that you have to be for SOME war or you're a pansy. (John Kerry also had to run as anti-Iraq but pro-war.)

[WeDidIt]

1. And Obama didn't even run on ending the Afghanistan conflict

I support staying in Afghanistan 100%. I also support increasing troop levels dramatically in Afghanistan.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Good. When do you deploy over to the Middle East?

Yes, put yourself on the line if you SUPPORT the insanity of endless war.

Come on Citizens, you need to step up to the plate and go down to the Enlistment Center.

If you think it's not easy being an anti-war candidate, TRY killing and dying for the ruling elites ... to protect their interests in raping other nation's natural resources of natural gas and oil.

YOU GO FIGHT FOR THE UPPER 1% and their quest for WORLD DOMINATION.

But don't you dare insist that I SUPPORT the impending SENSELESS death and destruction.

[WeDidIt]

4. I finished my service in 1982

and am too old to reup now.

[Ken Burch]

9. So, even though you know you can do nothing

And even though you served(albeit, given the date you mentioned, in a totally peacetime army)and in theory know what war can mean, you want to send this generation of soldiers off to kill and die for nothing?

Why did you learn NOTHING from Vietnam? That war PROVED that war is now futile.

[WonderGrunion]

15. Like that futile war in Bosnia?

You know, the one we won without losing a single soldier and stood up for oppressed Muslims in Europe. Nobody had won a Balkan war prior to that either, particularly without losing a single soldier.

[WeDidIt]

16. I reject your base assumptions.

I do not believe anybody dying in the Afghanistan conflict is dying for nothing.

[ShortnFiery]

10. That's OK send your kids? I'm not sending mine. eom

[WeDidIt]

17. I have no children.

My wife has had multiple miscarriages.

[ShortnFiery]

20. You have my sincere regret for such tragedy.

However, there are contracting companies that can take you if the Active Duty military says that you are to old to return to service?

[WeDidIt]

22. No contractor will take me at my age and with my health. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

23. I know contractors who work in our area. If you're not in ...

a power chair (basically ambulatory), no joke: they'll take ya. :shrug:

[cliffordu]

11. That's a really disingenuous, disgraceful stance -

Allowing the slaughter of tens of thousands of Afghans is unacceptable.

We broke it, we bought it - to leave now kills everyone who ever associated with the Americans.

Because they are foreign, brown and dirty, though, it is obvious you could give a shit about them.

Your willful ignorance of what has happened over there is breathtaking.

And that 'enlist if you support it' is a ruse.

I would have gone to Afghanistan in a heartbeat, but never to Iraq.

Alas, I was too old, slow and fucked up.

[ShortnFiery]

12. What part of Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and they don't want us there can you not comprehend?

No, it's not disingenuous at all.

You want endless war to corner the market on OIL and NATURAL GAS resources, then "double down" personally on this bet.

As a veteran you can embrace this: When the balloon goes up, there will be A DRAFT.

I've heard that the military has relaxed all sorts of restraints on re-entering on Active Duty. Why don't you join him and go fight those SENSELESS Oil Wars?

Then the rest of us, (those of us who know that increased military presence has NOTHING to do with humanitarian goals) don't have to send OUR BELOVED CHILDREN.

You bet I'm serious. You love this shit, then go join. Draft middle aged warmongers first. :evilgrin: Let me add this truism: THEY'LL take you over to the ME in a heartbeat. If not in the military, then as a contractor.

Right now we have more civilian contractors in Afghanistan than military.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/videos.php

[cliffordu]

13. I love your hatred. It gives me comfort knowing that I'm moving correctly in my stance.,

You hate those with differing opinions more than I ever hated the Vietcong, the North Vietnamese.

You armchair Joint Cheifs are all like that.

Don't confuse your own precious attempts at purity for solutions to real world problems.

If you believe so much that the war should end, put your ragged ass on the protest line. even if it means going out there by yourself.

[ShortnFiery]

14. No, it's called "resolve" not "hatred." I've always been gifted at getting down to the meat

of an argument in short order.

I have put my "ragged ass" on the protest line in the past: I marched against the Iraqi Invasion and Occupation in D.C.

I will continue to protest these illegal and immoral occupations of sovereign nations.

As much as I love my country and am proud that I served honorably in the US Army, I also know that WAR should always be the LAST RESORT.

Once WAR is declared it should be OVERWHELMING, QUICK and DECISIVE.

Fighting insurgencies is a lost cause and mostly terrorizes the innocents within the native population.

Hell, you already know that - and I'm NOT alone in my utter disgust at the prospect of sending in more combat troops into this occupation to kill and die for geopolitics.

The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack.

Part six of Rethink Afghanistan brings you three former high-ranking CIA agents on the record to explain why. There is no “victory” to be won in Afghanistan. Help build a movement to change this misguided policy.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=702

[Ken Burch]

8. Even though you know "victory" is impossible there?

Even though you know that going LBJ on Afghanistan's ass means having Afghanitan go Vietnam on President Obama's ass?

[WeDidIt]

18. I reject your base assumption

I reject the notion that victory in Afghanistan is impossible.

[TheKentuckian]

19. If you can't define victory then it isn't achievable. Then once you find that answer it must be

decided if the victory is worth the cost.

You can't just go balls to the wall for a "win" when you have no idea what it is, what it will take, and what it buys the American people any more than we can reflexively pretend that we never could possibly have real security concerns that must be addressed.

Both extremes of this are being simple minded and dangerous. Thinking you know the answers before the question have been posed is not super bright.

[WeDidIt]

21. Victory is definable

Taliban removed as a threat while Afghanis provide for their own security.

80,000 troops moved in over the next six months could achieve this objective over the next 18 months, after which time you ahve a draw down period of about 12 months.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Based on what? There is no model that demonstrates with any number of troops

that the Taliban (and certainly not a global organization like Al Queda) can be removed as a threat in 18 months and certainly NOTHING that would indicate that the Afghans can or are inclined to provide for their security in such a time.

There is no such plan or even a credible idea on the table to get to a plan because its not in the cards. Like Bush you are pretending that this is something we can just make happen because we show up and say make it so.

[bigwillq]

3. This is a well thought out post.

:thumbsup:

I say get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan NOW, but you do raise the very good point that this is not an easy decision.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Thanks for the kind words. I figure it's all about Pakistan

Absent Pakistan the Afghanistan war would be absurd.

But I can see some merit to having bases so close to NW Pakistan (and Islamabad)

Since Pakistan's nuclear capability is still fighter-based we can probably stop them from nuking anyone, at least anyone far away.

And our presence is at least some limit on Pak, which could get really crazy at any moment.

So I wouldn't mind a "withdraw to bases" strategy with less troops, less engagement and without all the nation-building which probably isn't going anywhere.

[Enrique]

6. the focus on being fair to Obama risks prolonging the war

no, ending the war is not easy. Easier to let it go on. But we should be making it harder for Obama to stay in. I think if we keep explaining to ourselves why Obama isn't ending the war, we make it even easier for him to keep us there.

[TheKentuckian]

24. That's not the right balance either.

First, we must make a frank assessment if we have substantive security concerns. Second, we must determine what the possibilities to address the concerns, if any. Third, we must decide which of the options will have the best chance of effectively addressing the concern(s). Fourth, we must determine if the benefit outweighs the costs and if not then recalibrate goals and means and see how it washes in the cost/benefit analysis.

You can no more make a predetermined decision to do anything to end a war than you can reflexively go to war.

You never start with the answer and then work backwards that is exactly what got us into Iraq. This is not reverse engineering since there is no real final product to model from.

[Ken Burch]

7. Scarily good analysis

You're right on all that. And I desperately need a stiff drink.

[karynnj]

26. Kerry did not run as pro-war, unless you define pro-war as anything not completely pacifistic

The fact is that there is no politician I can think of who has more clearly articulated a foreign policy on how to deal with terrorism than Kerry did - and it was anything but hawkish. In 2004, on Iraq, he spoke of withdrawing some troops as early as 2005. His focus was on an immediate regional summit. He spoke of no permanent bases. In 2006, in his Pepperdine speech, he spoke more theoretically about his beliefs on war. Kerry has always - since 1971 - been for war only as a last resort.
Who would you consider genuinely not pro-war.

Was Dean pro-war? He did not call for immediately leaving. He was actually pretty vague on what he would do. The fact is that Kerry was more detailed on what could have been called an exit plan than Dean was. In 2006, Dean was for the the Korb plan, that was hawkish compared to Kerry's Kerry/Feingold plan.

[Autumn]

27. Good post

I don't think we can win these wars, and I still can't see why we have to keep them going.

[slay]

28. Recommending so as to cancel out the un-rec's

a feature i sooooo don't like. Good post - I wish he'd just get the hell out of Afuckistan now and use the war money for health care instead. I know that sounds crazy - maybe my priorities are wrong. :crazy: