The typically idiotic Balloon Juice has a headline entitled “We could lose Afghanistan because the administration unwisely diverted resources to Iraq.” The link references today’s NY Times story about Afghanistan. In examining this issue, I feel as if I’m trying to teach third grade. I admit I don’t have any idea how to teach third grade, but as a blogger who engages the Left, I’m learning.
I love the casual use of the word BECAUSE by Balloon Juice. It means so much.
For one, it means that more troops will definitely defeat insurgencies. Not in Iraq, mind you, where the surge is “stupid,” but everywhere else, I guess.
For another, it is an acknowledgement that the liberals who have opposed increasing the size of the military are wrong. This of course includes Andre and every other leftist who is arguing for more troops in Afghanistan. They say more troops would defeat Bin Laden, and then adamantly oppose more troops in the US Army and Marines.
It also shows the brazen willingness of the Left to lie about situations around the world.
Says Balloon Juice, while cheering our failures in Afghanistan: “I don’t particularly want to see America lose a war, but….” His qualification is laughable!
Yesterday, we discussed the ranting/Fisking by one David Rees. He claimed that to believe that desperate Iraq tribes could come together was “retarded.” Now, Balloon Juice says, Sure we could do it, we just needed a better President. So is Balloon Juice retarded? Is David Rees? Is Andre?
Anyway, this all reminds me of a very old joke. When conservatives like me and Bill Kristol said that we should dramatically expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps back in 2003, liberals had a ready reply: “Well, hell, those forces wouldn’t even be on-line for another two years, so they wouldn’t help us now.” Then — after two years — in 2005, they said, “Shoot, are you stupid? Troops enlisted today won’t even be available until about 2007. Might as well not bother.” Now that it’s 2007, and even the Left has begun to lie about their desire for more troops. I ask again: Can we increase the size of the Army and Marines? Answer: Of course not! We don’t actually want to win, we just want to bitch.
Here’s the old joke: An Army Ranger has a radio connection to an imbecile who wants to realize his life’s dream and jump out of an airplane. After the imbecile jumps, at about 5,000 feet, the Ranger says to the him, “Okay, you better pull your chute.”
“Naw,” says the imbecile, “I’ve got plenty of time.”
At 1,000 feet, the Ranger again says, “Seriously, you need to pull your chute.”
“I still have 1,000 feet,” says the imbecile.
At 500 feet, the Ranger implores, “If you don’t pull your chute, you’ll die!”
But the imbecile continues to count down.
“300 feet, 100 feet, 50 feet….”
At 20 feet, the Ranger says goodbye over the radio, but the imbecile says, “20 feet? Hell, I can jump from here!”
So what will 2009 hold? Or 2011 or 2020? The prudent course for a superpower who has been undermanned in recent battles would be to increase the force size in anticipation of those unknowable years, but just try getting that past the imbeciles on the Left.
UPDATE: Link for Balloon Juice fixed
The Conservative Citizen 
Are you kidding? You and Bill Kristol????
You are, right?
BTW, Looking for the “headline” you mentioned… Can’t quite find it. Please re-link.
Balloon Juice headline: Here.
Sorry, was reading headlines, not text of posts…
And you don’t address the fact that Kristol advocated more troops from the start and throughout the time since.
So are Kristol and I wrong about the surge?
Or will surges in Afghanistan work, but not those in Iraq?
And do you even take yourself seriously anymore?
Well, we’ll see. Once again, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong (despite what you may think).
BTW, Can I publish the DFV predictions about Iraq yet?
I don’t think it’s a contradiction at all to think that an increased force would help in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. It’s not a matter of military strategy, it’s a matter of winning. And moreover, of what will actually move closer to winning the war on terror. A victory in Iraq right now will at best result in a government extremely hostile to the United States and any future conflicts. A victory in Afghanistan pushes us closer to Bin Laden and in a position to better stand in between Iran and Pakistan, which are now probably the two most dangerous countries in the region, no?
Only a damn fool would argue that a smaller military presence is better than a bigger one. But when that big one tests the limits of how big we can get, it better be in a situation where it will work. Because otherwise, at best it’s just a waste of time and money.
Wes said…
WTF?
I would go on with the rest of your comments, but that would be redundant.
The prudent course for a superpower who has been undermanned in recent battles would be to increase the force size in anticipation of those unknowable years, but just try getting that past the imbeciles on the Left.
Damned right! Start the draft, I say!