Donkasaurus Post

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal notes that an alarming 57% of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, and only 42% are in favor (presumably) of continuing it. 

Was opposition to the Iraq effort ever this high? Not often.

Journalists, and others, have often commingled these two efforts, as if they are one and the same.  But they are not.  Iraq was a nation building effort, based on the idea that removing a brutal dictator and helping to inspire a freer nation, and a democracy, in the region instead, and remove Hussein, would help with the broader anti-terrorism effort. (Those who think it was really about WMD’s need to consider the possibility that it really was not.)

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was essentially ruled by the Taliban; who, in return for their assistance in fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance, etc., and likely philosphical support, provided full sanctuary and support for al-Qaeda directly.  In the words of Peter Bergen (via a telephone conversation), perhaps the West’s foremost expert on al-Qaeda, the ruling Taliban were inextricably tied to al-Qaeda — the group that launched the depraved attacks against us, and declared war against and promised destruction to, the West.  (Also see this Clinton Administration strategy memorandum detailing the intricate involvement of the Taliban with al-Qaeda; passed on, along with unusual urging regarding the growing threat of al-Qaeda, from the outgoing Clinton Administration to the incoming Bush Administration. )

The two wars have been spun the same, but they were not the same. 

As noted below, Afghanistan presents a tricky question. A big part of the problem was the fact that Afghanistan was not sufficiently focused on, when it needed to be. A big part of this was due to our divergence of effort, focus, and troops into Iraq — a country not responsible for 9/11, and according to every non partisan Senate Committee and Intelligence agency report ever conducted (as opposed to the voices on the far right who could “manufacture” a “link” between al-Qaeda and the U.S. if they wanted to), not connected to the attack, or even al-Qaeda in any meaningful way.

This was a big strategic mistake, in terms of not sufficiently focusing on Afghanistan. Obama ran for President in part on the call to do a better job in Afghanistan, increase boots on the ground so as to not have to overely upon civilian air power which was causing too many civilian casualties, and since taking office has increased our troop presence there (to the relief of some, and to the chagrin of others), and focused more directly upon Afghanistan than the prior administration, back when it was most important, ever did.

But of course, predictably, the wholly partisan Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto has managed to spin this around on its head, and now — never mind that public opinion, rightly or wrongly, doesn’t even want us in Afghanistan — fully blames the Obama Administration.  (Emphasis added).

Because Obama insisted on launching a war that should have never been waged, and then doubling down on a failed strategy, the war in Afghanistan has been ignored. If Afghanistan burns while the president is fiddling with health insurance, he could be remembered for one of the greatest abdications of responsibility in the history of the American presidency.

Anyone wondering how long it would take before the cause of almost all of the problems caused over the last eight plus years would be long forgotten, with the new official reason being Obama himself, doesn’t really need to wonder much more. In fact, they probably have not had to, for months now.

Taranto’s spin is nauseating.