By: Brooks A. Mick
No, I’m not talking about how ridiculously funny our politicians are, though that is often the case. I am talking about the politics displayed in the cartoon section recently.
“Mother Goose and Grim” is semi-humorously commenting on the decision to allow handguns to be carried in national parks. I would simply suggest they wait to see whether any unwarranted gunfire actually occurs under the new rules.
And then, as expected “Doonesbury” is jumping on the cut-and-run bandwagon in Afghanistan, just as they were on the surrender bandwagon in Iraq. I thought the Democrat left-wing argument was that “Afghanistan is the right war and we ought to be there, not in Iraq.” But no, now that the unwinnable Iraq was has been won, it’s back to general anti-war protesting. What’s bizarre this time is that Doonesbury is protesting a war that Democrats had been on record as favoring. Anti-war protesters almost never protest a Democrat-sponsored war. I don’t recall Doonesbury protested Clinton’s Bosnia excursion. By the way, even though Clinton promised the troops would be out by Christmas (of what year?), aren’t there still troops there.
Anyway, back to Afghanistan versus Iraq.
I actually agree that we may well not have much we can accomplish in Afghanistan. The Afghan people tend to be decentralized, tribal-oriented, not nationalistic, more on the level of gang members (Crips and Bloods) rather than patriots. This tends to prove that “Doonesbury” is wrong, Bush was correct, and that we focused on Iraq quite properly and accomplished the goals set forth initially. There is now a democratic government established in the midst of the Middle East.
“Doonesbury” is back on the “Vietnam Quagmire” schtick, claiming that the Taliban are nationalists and that the war is unwinnable. I differ. As noted above, Afghans have always been more tribe/gang oriented. Similarly, the Taliban are Islamic supremacists, and viciously fanatic ones, ready to apply their extreme version of Shariah law in Afghanistan and also in Pakistan. Has “Doonesbury” not noted the advance of the Taliban upon the capital city of Pakistan just months ago? The Taliban are not Afghan nationalists.
Regarding the “nationalism” in the Vietnam War, I would also point out that the North Vietnamese communists had nothing to fear from the USA or the South Vietnamese, as nobody ever attacked North Vietnam. It was North Vietnam that attacked South Vietnam. Sure, the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and weak, but they weren’t a threat to North Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a war of aggression by North Vietnam, not a nationalistic movement inside South Vietnam. Sure, there was the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese used these for a time as a front group, but are there not always some who fight alongside an external aggressor?
So. Bush was right in Iraq, Obama may prove wrong in Afghanistan. Let’s keep our eyes and our minds open, and let’s not depend upon cartoons or comedians for our factual news journalism.
The problem with leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban is that would bring back the situation that existed prior to 9/11 and there is no reason to think that they would not return to supporting terrorists who would again train to attack the USA. That logic also applied to Iraq, one could note.