Newt Gingrich: The Afghan War "Is Not Going To End Well'

[bobbyw24]

By: Jason Rosenbaum Wednesday July 14, 2010 9:06 am


Maybe he’ll run and maybe he won’t, I for one don’t care much. But Next Gingrich has just become the latest in a long line of Republicans to express deep skepticism about our strategy in Afghanistan. He had this to say:

We are in enormous danger because we consistently underestimate how hard this is…You’re dealing with Afghan culture that is fundamentally different than us, in ways we don’t understand. [The war] is not going to end well.

Gingrich joins Michael Steele, Ann Coulter and a host of other Republican luminaries in this view, including people like George Will who are straight-up against continued war in the country. I predict that every week that goes by will bring more Republicans who will switch positions until the Republican party’s new stance is against the Afghanistan war.

This shift is easily predictable in a two party system:

The political landscape in a country with two major parties is a landscape of poles. It is a rare moment when the two parties hold the same position on a major and controversial issue. For the last few decades or so, and certainly during the Bush years, the popular conception of the Democratic Party – warranted or not – has been the party of doves, where Republicans are the party of hawks. However, as the Democratic Party has responded to very effective criticism from the right that they are "soft" on national defence by becoming more hawkish in aggregate, and as the Democratic Party has begun to own the issue of Afghanistan specifically with President Obama’s embrace of escalation, the Republican party is naturally pushed towards the opposite position.

Having owned the "Party of War" brand for so long, it is taking a long time for Republicans to return to their earlier roots as the party of isolation. But as Ron Paul showed in 2008, the isolationist, anti-interventionist message is one that resonates with a lot of Republicans (and many progressives – I myself agree with a fair amount of Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy, though certainly not all). As the Democrats own Afghanistan further and get themselves further mired in war, Republicans will move to oppose the President.

It’s really remarkable how quickly this shift seems to be occurring recently, with comments by Steele,

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/59820

[low preference guy]

One more Republican jumping off the Afghan ship. The shift is evident right now.

[TheDriver]

This is a good sign, but NEWT makes my stomach feel upset.

[bobbyw24]

Cause for Concern in Afghanistan

Sen Dick Lugar


There is substantial concern about our course in Afghanistan, in part because of the recent disruption in our military leadership, but also because gains in governance, development, military training, and other areas have not occurred at a pace that boosts confidence in President Obama's original timetable. Some security improvements have been achieved and more are likely to follow, but they have been hard won. In six months, the president expects a review by his commanders on the status of our efforts in Afghanistan. This review presumably would determine the shape of an expected transition of responsibilities to Afghan security forces in July 2011. But absent a major realignment on the ground, it is unrealistic to expect that a significant downsizing of U.S. forces could occur at that time without security consequences. This conclusion is reinforced by recent GAO and Inspector General reports that have raised deep concerns over the viability and quality of training for the Afghan National Army and police.

The lack of clarity in Afghanistan does not end with the president's timetable. Both civilian and military operations in Afghanistan are proceeding without a clear definition of success. There has been much discussion of our counter-insurgency strategy and methods, but very little explanation of what metrics must be achieved before the country is considered secure.

At some moments it appears as if we are trying to remake the economic, political, and security culture of Afghanistan. We should know by now that such grand ambitions are beyond our resources and powers. At other moments, it appears we are content with a narrow, security-driven definition of success: preventing an implacably hostile Taliban regime from taking over the government and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safe haven, regardless of what government is in power.

But even if this narrow definition of success were embraced by the Obama administration, it would require amplification. How much Taliban military capability and territorial control is tolerable? What are we currently doing in Afghanistan that is not required to achieve this narrow objective? What are reasonable mileposts for judging progress towards success? What time constraints do we perceive, given resource and alliance pressures? How do dynamics in Pakistan factor into our strategy in Afghanistan?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-dick-lugar/cause-for-concern-in-afgh_b_645805.html

[MRoCkEd]

Man I hope this anti-war sentiment keeps picking up steam!

[TheDriver]

Man I hope this anti-war sentiment keeps picking up steam!

I prefer a non-nation building slogan.... :p

The word anti-war turns off many. They immediately think of lefties.

[jmdrake]

Dick Lugar asking for measures of success, milestones and a timetable? Lugar mentioning "time constraints"? LOL. And now Ron Paul isn't the only republican elected official to question the war. :cool:

[MRoCkEd]

I prefer a non-nation building slogan.... :p

The word anti-war turns off many. They immediately think of lefties.
I don't use it outside of this forum unless I'm talking to lefties! :p

[jmdrake]

Update: I just found that Lugar was questioning the Afghanistan war back in 2008 when Bush was still in charge. :cool:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1708934,00.html
*
* 5Share
* 0diggsdigg

It was malice in wonderland at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday as Bush Administration envoys insisted things are getting better in Afghanistan, while angry lawmakers from both parties cited facts and figures showing just the opposite. Even the senior Republican on the panel, Senator Richard Lugar, found the Administration's claims wanting. "I'm not sure that we have a plan for Afghanistan," he said.
.
.
.
But at the hearing, Lugar remained unimpressed. He likened the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan to a political campaign in Indiana. A candidate can tell his supporters, "I've been to Clinton County, I've touched base, and we're doing well over here in Kokomo,'" Lugar said. "But if the final result is that you get 25% of the vote and lose three to one, this is bad news."

[w2992]

amazing Afgan war top yahoo trend today july 14!
http://search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz&p=Afghanistan+War&fr=fp-tts-701&fr2=ps

[georgiaboy]

I've seen a firedoglake.com blogger on C-SPAN. Had respect for RP in many areas as I recall.

Newt, huh? Still feel like this is more politics than any real change of policy that will drive a return to a simple national defense, as opposed to a global imperial offense on the part of both party establishments. Soften the rhetoric just enough to keep the RP-libertarian/paleos from continuing to deny the GOP votes, but the general big gov't direction continues.

Good start, but ain't buyin' it yet.

[w2992]

amazing Afgan war top yahoo trend today july 14!
http://search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz...tts-701&fr2=ps

[specsaregood]

One more Republican jumping off the Afghan ship. The shift is evident right now.

I'd like to point out that I called it a couple days ago. :)


He (newt) will (run) and he will come out as the anti-war republican. Just you wait.....Romney and Palin can't do it, they see now they NEED an "antiwar" republican in the field. Can't risk Dr. Paul getting that 34%.

[Eroberer]

Great, when he runs, he could pick up the anti-war republicans. That would leave Paul in a tougher position. Newt does not have Bush attached to him, so he can weasel out of the last 10 years and point to the 94 charge that he led.

It is good that he has so much other baggage to sink him, but somehow I doubt it will come under much scrutiny.

Let us hope that he does not run.

[low preference guy]

I'd like to point out that I called it a couple days ago. :)

Good call.

I actually think this increases Ron Paul chances. IF they make anti-war acceptable, the most believable anti-war candidate will win. And that is Dr. Paul.

If Obama ends the war on Iraq, Ron should end the war on Afghanistan, which is the Democrat's favorite war.

[Imaginos]

IF they make anti-war acceptable, the most believable anti-war candidate will win. And that is Dr. Paul.

Yes.
And Ron Paul is not just believable but he is THE ONLY true anti-war candidate.
He is the only one with a proven track record (over three decades!) of being an anti-war statesman.

[surf]

I prefer a non-nation building slogan.... :p

The word anti-war turns off many. They immediately think of lefties.

interesting observation. how does "pro-war" rate?

honestly, the crowd i hang out with usually has always been more vocal in their disdain for Bush. i still think that our chance of winning is rooted in the "independents" and intelligent democrats that we can encourage to switch to our side (and "anti-war" is a very popular issue with these folks) rather than the old-guard Rs that will probably hitch their wagons to Mittens until we can crush that fraud.

[silentshout]

I am in shock, lol. But I still don't like Newt...bleh.

[silentshout]

interesting observation. how does "pro-war" rate?

honestly, the crowd i hang out with usually has always been more vocal in their disdain for Bush. i still think that our chance of winning is rooted in the "independents" and intelligent democrats that we can encourage to switch to our side (and "anti-war" is a very popular issue with these folks) rather than the old-guard Rs that will probably hitch their wagons to Mittens until we can crush that fraud.

I agree with you.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd like to point out that I called it a couple days ago. :)

Spex FTW.

He did call it.

[CharlesTX]

I was anti-nation building when anti-nation building wasn't cool.

But this is the kind of bandwaggoning I don't mind.

[TheDriver]

interesting observation. how does "pro-war" rate?



Most people would immediately think of George Bush/ Dick Cheney types and be turned off.... using that term. ;)

If you want to attract people from the middle don't use language associated with the left or right. Or limit the terms as much as you can.

[YumYum]

Newt is not anti-war; he is anti-Afghanistan occupation. Ann Coulter, Gingrich and other neocons are still for going to war with Iran.

Israel is against the increase of troops in Afghanistan. Tying up all of our troops in Afghanistan means we can't invade Iran.

Richard Haas, a Zionist who is the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, was on Morning Joe today, predicting that Obama will not be re-elected because he has lost Jewish voter support because of the way Obama has treated the Israeli government.

Just a week ago, Haas was on Morning Joe, blasting the troop build up in Afghanistan and claiming that the war was not winnable. But, Haas is 100% for going to war with Iran.

Put the pieces of the puzzle together and its easy to see what is going on.

Obama has been standing up to Israel, and he can make the excuse to the Israeli government that we can't invade Iran because we are tied up in Afghanistan; the "right war".

Obama has outwitted Israel. So, Israel has to discredit "Obama's war" in Afghanistan to free up those troops to invade Iran.

Also, Bill Kristol is useless. Israel doesn't need him and his friends anymore. They served their purpose.

[coastie]

Newt Gingrich: The Afghan War "Is Not Going To End Well'

Oh damn, thanks Newt for pointing that out after only nearly 10 years and over 1000 American deaths.:rolleyes:

The sad part is that most big "R"s are gonna be all over this like it's a "new" view on the war.:mad:

[A Son of Liberty]

el oh el

Obama makes Afghanistan "his" war (I wish he'd go fight it, and leave the rest of us out of it)... Shockingly, Republican-types start coming out of the woodwork, after a comfortable enough amount of time has gone by, of course, in opposition to it.

No. Way.

These people - Gingrich, Coulter, Steele, etc. - are as anti-war as Obama.

Disgusting.

[heavenlyboy34]

el oh el

Obama makes Afghanistan "his" war (I wish he'd go fight it, and leave the rest of us out of it)... Shockingly, Republican-types start coming out of the woodwork, after a comfortable enough amount of time has gone by, of course, in opposition to it.

No. Way.

These people - Gingrich, Coulter, Steele, etc. - are as anti-war as Obama.

Disgusting.

This is typical sausage-making, beltway politics as usual kind of stuff. I'm glad you're disgusted by it. I hope this moves you to action against such State crimes in the future. :)

[A Son of Liberty]

This is typical sausage-making, beltway politics as usual kind of stuff. I'm glad you're disgusted by it. I hope this moves you to action against such State crimes in the future. :)

I've maximized my deductions, and intend to engage in tax avoidance next Spring.

It's becoming a more unavoidable burden upon my conscience to provide life to this beast.

My vote went to Barr in '08 - not because I was a supporter of him, but a supporter of libertarianism, as it were.

I think, from now on, unless Ron Paul makes the general election, I'll be withholding my consent... and maybe even if...

[paulitics]

So Iraq occupation is ok, but Afgahanstan occupation is bad? It seems like the only difference between the 2, is that one country was easier to nation build. Any wet behind the ears college kid with a modicum of knowledge of world history would tell you the exact same thing it took 10 years for Newt to figure out aout Afghanastan.

So, Mr newt is against nation building in Afghanastan not for any moral reason, but for political reasons. It will be great to blame the wars on the Dems, and since he is planning on making a run, he is counting on a brain dead electorate to once again forget it was the neocons who are most responsible for the mess we are in.

[freshjiva]

Having owned the "Party of War" brand for so long, it is taking a long time for Republicans to return to their earlier roots as the party of isolation. But as Ron Paul showed in 2008, the isolationist, anti-interventionist message is one that resonates with a lot of Republicans (and many progressives – I myself agree with a fair amount of Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy, though certainly not all). As the Democrats own Afghanistan further and get themselves further mired in war, Republicans will move to oppose the President.

It’s really remarkable how quickly this shift seems to be occurring recently, with comments by Steele,

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/59820

Jeez, someone needs to explain to the masses that nonintervention is NOT isolationist. Its the very opposite. :mad:

It was one of Ron Paul's strongest debate rebuttals in 2008, when McCain accused of Ron as being an isolationist. Ron made the intelligent point that wars, alliances, militarism, interventionism, and economic sanctions are the real isolationist policies. It explains why we have fewer friends today than ever before in American history.

[PreDeadMan]

That asshole is only saying that because a Republican isn't in the white house. If Bush was in the white house raping everything in site torturing maiming killing fucking slaughtering everything would be fine and dandy....