Can I take a few minutes of your time and run something by you? I’m having dilemma and I need some honest answers only you can provide.
Have you gotten smarter in the last 18 months? Have you been boning up on the provincial conflicts in Kandahar? Do you understand the context of Kandahar Governor Tooryalai Wesa’s call for increased negotiations with the Taliban?
Let me explain my problem: I support President Obama’s decision to send more troops (or shall we say, his “Troop surge?”) to Afghanistan. It’s the right decision to combat the Taliban’s increased violence in the region and Pakistani unrest. And it would appear that I am in the majority which is new for me because when I supported President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, I was so NOT in the majority. I just can’t figure out how the public has come to decide that THIS troop surge is copacetic and the previous troop surge was an impeachable offense.
I have yet to see or hear any negative commentary about our Commander in Chief’s decision to double (that’s right America—double) the troop presence in Afghanistan. (To be fair, Cindy Sheehan is against it. But Cindy Sheehan thinks the surging troop membership at Girl Scout 6770 in Toad Suck, Arkansas, is a military conspiracy too.) A local tribal elder in Afghanistan, Nani Kako, says more Westerners mean more targets for militants, which inevitably will lead to more civilian casualties. Apparently, President Obama and American citizens aren’t buying it and we’re pressing ahead with our plans to send 17,000 more soldiers to the region.
Although, Kako’s comments sound an awful lot like what Time Magazine wrote in December of 2006, “In Anbar province, where the presence of American troops on the streets of places like Ramadi actually prompts violence rather than heading it off.”
Of this we can be sure: there’s no way the media is guilty of partisan politics just to support the policies of the new President. There’s no double standard. No free pass. No 100 day growing period. Just honest, factual reporting. Right?
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth,” Malcolm X said. “Because they control the minds of the masses.”
The Democratic Party has a suite on the Lido Deck of the SS Speciousness, as well: nary a word of dissent from the party of change. “This strategy recognizes a point that I have emphasized for years,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said. “And one that I shared with the president following my visit last month to Afghanistan, which is that we must have a regional approach to countering terrorism.”
So long as that regional approach is championed by Obama and not Bush, Nanc?
In a letter dated January 5, 2007, to President Bush she had written, “A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.”
My how this party has changed indeed.
President Obama’s statement announcing the troop increase went so far as to cast blame for Afghanistan’s unrest on his predecessor: “This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires,” Obama said.
Or maybe the Democrats have just been smart enough to learn from the success of the previous surge strategy, also overseen by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, even if they’re unwilling to say as much.
I’ll be honest, and I hope this isn’t hurtful, but I don’t really think you’re that much smarter. I think those of you were smart on these issues two years ago are still smart today. And those of you who didn’t know diddly a few years back, still don’t know diddly. I don’t for one second believe that Americans today have a fuller understanding of the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan and, as such, are now supportive of the President’s efforts to combat terrorism and the Taliban in an effort to defend America and the interests of liberty worldwide.
No; I think this is simply one of the most egregious examples of media bias and fickle American politics I can remember in my lifetime. Those of you who were aghast at the audacity of President Bush to send more troops to the Middle East and who are now sitting idly by ought to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why that is.
The answer is the real problem with the American political process.