Barack Obama is to George W. Bush what Richard Nixon was to Lyndon Johnson. A continuity marked the Vietnam War policies of Presidents 36 and 37. The same will be said by history of the war polices of Presidents 43 and 44. By escalating the troop count in Afghanistan, and continuing the war in Iraq, Barack Obama is proving an able caretaker of George W. Bush's foreign policy legacy. There is a sense in which American foreign policy runs on autopilot once set into motion. It needn't be this way. Instead of playing Nixon to Bush's Johnson, Obama could have played Dwight Eisenhower to Bush's Harry Truman. The Korean War, like our current wars, was unpopular because it did little to further the national interest and came at the expense of thousands of lives and much treasure. Obama quoted from Ike in his speech that he delivered at the general's alma mater in an auditorium called Eisenhower Hall. One would think with all of these reminders of the general/president, the community organizer/president might want to be more like Ike and less like the keeper of Bush's foreign policy legacy that he has become.

I thought afghanistan was the good war? oh lefties dont be so down B.O. said the troops come home in 2011.

I thought Dan supported our war effort in Afghanistan. I've heard his (flawed) reasoning for why the Iraq War is bad, but I haven't heard why he's against Afghanistan now too.

In fact, the argument that Afghanistan is also the "bad war" kind of takes credence away from his anti-Iraq statements. "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!" (By the way, no one ever said that Iraq attacked us on 9/11; In fact, Condi Rice testified in front of Congress that the exact opposite was true). But so what? Even the people who DID attack us on 9/11--and their hosts--are off the hook too.

This is mindless. No matter how justified the war may be, there will always be people who oppose it and demand to be crowned super-patriots for their "dissent".

Dan, you're right about a great many things, but this isn't one of them.

We have already driven from power the hosts of the people who attacked us on 9/11, Ben. I was for the war in Afghanistan to achieve that objective. Why are you for the war now? To make sure they don't return to power? Would you have fought World War II in the 1950s to ensure that there wasn't a resurgence of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? The war started in 2001. Why should we be fighting it in 2011 and beyond? Wars, even good wars like Afghanistan, should end. If the amorphous objective there now is to drive all the bad people from Afghanistan, we will be fighting there for a long, long time.

I would have fought the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into the 50's, or as long as it took. That's how you win wars. Trust me, the Taliban and al-Qaida don't have any timetable on this, which is essentially their strategic advantage. They're in and to win it, and we're...not so much.

Furthermore, it's hard to say that they've been driven from power when they control so much of the country. That's an unfortunate fact.

This job in Afghanistan has to get done, and it has to get done right. Even if it continues past 2011? YES!

I would have fought the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan into the 50's, or as long as it took. That's how you win wars. Trust me, the Taliban and al-Qaida don't have any timetable on this, which is essentially their strategic advantage. They're in and to win it, and we're...not so much.

Furthermore, it's hard to say that they've been driven from power when they control so much of the country. That's an unfortunate fact.

This job in Afghanistan has to get done, and it has to get done right. Even if it continues past 2011? YES!

There's been some buzz that when Iran finally goes nuclear that they have designs on invading Saudi Arabia and laying claim to their vast petroleum resources and that an already nuclear Pakistan would be in league with them. Both have Taliban (or, as O says - Taleeebon) of different flavors and there's been the old talk that's new that if we allow for the Taliban to proliferate in Afghanistan, they will do the same in Pakistan and the destabilization of the region under control of the Taliban in general will expedite conquests in the Middle East.

But, we've heard this before haven't we? Wasn't South Viet Nam part of the communist 'Domino Theory'? Again, what's old is new.

The bottom line is that trying to control what's going on in the Middle East is like maintaining a handful of water. Immediately though - what strategic or otherwise value does Afghanistan have that warrants our blood and treasure?

Nice sneaky way the throw vietnam in there, like those tricky Dems. whats next QuagMire? and for commie dominos, where they go after vietnam? we lost there but we stopped it cold, with our willingness to fight evil. But now pinko"s look like that big ear clown we have in the whiteHouse and not Mao. And Dan, you mean to tell me you would not keep fighting the nazis if Hitler excaped? you call yer self a Marine.

You missed my point TagM: Hitler didn't escape. We toppled the Nazis. The war should have, and did, stop there. We toppled the Taliban--the people who gave safe harbor to bin Laden--almost a decade ago. Yet, we're still engaged in the nation building project in Afghanistan. As far as bin Laden is concerned, he masterminded the murders of 3,000 Americans on 9/11--not tens of millions of people as Hitler did. We should kill him, but according to most intelligence reports the place to do so is not Afghanistan. Fighting a war in Afghanistan once had something to do with killing bin Laden. That's why I supported it. It hasn't had anything to do with bin Laden for several years, as he doesn't seem to be there any longer. It's time to bring the war to a close, not escalate it.

Afghanistan has pathed wrongly forever and before 9/11 there was no reason whatsoever for U.S. forces to be there. It could be argued that even after 9/11 as well. But there was some reason.

We went in supposedly to eradicate terrorist forces and in the process push the Taliban back into the hills, which we did. And as a bonus we saved some Afghanis from a brutal existence under that same Taliban.

So we started as a search and destroy force and have evolved into a police force. Once that evolution occurred, we should have gotten out.

The country is so corrupt and primitive, the people and the country hold no interest of value to the United States. So, what is the purpose of us wasting American money and lives?

Please explain.

As with Viet Nam, if we really, really, really wanted to stop aggression there and it’s important enough to do that, we could do that in literally 5 minutes from right now. I mean, why are we spending billions on an industrial military complex to develop the most sophisticated and lethal weapons on the planet, ones that can zap an enemy hundreds of miles away with surgical efficiency but not use them? We would rather send Mrs. Johnson’s fine young lad over there with a couple of clips of ammo and tell him not to shoot until he sees the white of their turbans. Meanwhile, the people who own the country are shooting him in the back.

If we are going to have blood, at least let it be for oil. Or something like that please.

Frankly, the only person who has had it right this decade was Harry Truman.

"Frankly, the only person who has had it right this decade was Harry Truman."

Century, that is.

zap people from miles away, hmm ah nukes? isnt that why Big Mac. got fired? cuz Harry didnt want to.

We have very sophisticated non-nuclear weapons that could get the job done very nicely. But our alleged "leaders" don't have the resolve to use even those.

They would rather politically posture to demonstrate our supposedly moral superiority by putting boots on the ground and not take a tough stand that might be un-popular in the court of world opinion.

Don't quite follow the argument about the nazi's and Japanese into the 1950's- japan and Germany were non-entities in the 50's as far as Nazism or the axis powers. To say Al Queda is defeated would be similar to saying Communism was dead in 1970- I mean you can't say that because the USSR was being held at bay by MAD and us intervening in myriad ways during this timeframe- right up to the end of the cold war. Islamofascism is much more virulent than any of that other stuff as lets say 10% of the 1 billion or so muslims may subscribe to that ideology. Vigilence IS the price of freedom. --Sorry to say that though Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan the issue is NOT him per se- it is Afghanistan being a haven for Al Queda. Unfortunately these outposts of desolation are areas we MUST be vigilent about as the Taliban and Al Queda are not going to set up shop in NYC eh.

I personally cannot buy that the way to judge these things is by body count. Sure we "only" lost 3000 or so on 911- but it was on our soil and it's a much different enemy than countries identified and unified under a particular flag or axis of powers etc. While I can agree Bush made many mistakes I must say that Clinton underestimated this threat for years and treated it as though it were a criminal matter as it progressed and grew- and here we are again with a similiar view from the administration. It is much tougher calculating this enemy- but it is surely better to look at it in a worldwide context as they the Islamofascist's attack our interests and mount attacks on a worldwide level.--- I would compare this to the Kamikaze fighters and the mentality of the Japanese in WW2- but I think its worse than that. This is an anti-Jewish-anti-Christian crusade against the west that is the primary focus of these individuals from tiny tots upward. It is ingrained and the religious fervor of it makes it a much misunderstood movement from the warfare of the past. These people WILL die gladly for the reults they wish to acheive.

As we have trampled abroad in search of monsters to destroy - contra the wise counsel of Quincy Adams, Washington and Jefferson - might it be that we sow the seeds of ever more monsters? The former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden unit thinks so, and he is far from alone in that informed opinion.

Beyond the thousands of innocent lives we destroy - both of foreigners and the family lives of our own soldiers - this is the great folly of the Dubya-Obama foreign policy of perpetual war.

Can't buy that the US is the REASON for the nuttiness and inhumanness of the rest of the world. I mean isn't that a VERY prima donna like attitude that they are irresponsible and we are the reason they act the way they do? I mean isolationism never worked really and certainly wont work now.

There's that tired neo-con red herring again, that opposition to perpetual war and empire building somehow equals isolationism. How is it that the only alternative to shutting yourself in a closet is dropping bombs on everyone who looks at you funny?

There's that other red herring--that anyone who likes the sound of "victory" is actually arguing in favor of perpetual war and empire building. Please consider a serious argument. Snarky, sarcastic words placed in the mouths of other people is not an adding to the discussion.

Oh, by the way Eric. Before calling me a "neo-con", I thought I'd tell you that I scored a more solidly libertarian score than you on that silly scale that psuedo-libertarians such as yourself like to post on their blogs. Not that those political tests mean much, but I thought I'd tell you.

What's "victory"? Utopian foreign policies never achieve their definition of victory, any more than utopian economic systems do.

As for serious arguments, I've offered a number of them here and at my blog previously. I feel no need to repeat myself. But for those so inclined, here are a few things I've said related to the subject (most had to do with Iraq, but same principles apply now in Afghanistan):

How Recent and Would-Be American Presidents Would Deal With a Hornet Nest (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=688)
In Response to Jonah Goldberg: On Ron Paul and His Foreign Policy (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=841)
Is the Iraq War Constitutional? (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=689)
Iraq: Are “We” Now Morally Compelled to Stay? (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=410)
On the War on Terror, Imperialism, and American Monarchy (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=419)
The Path To 9/11 or The Path Since 9/11: Which is Worse? (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=383)
Terrorism and Bin Laden Expert Has a Lesson for Giuliani (http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=557)

See also the extended conversation in the comments to one of Dan's earlier posts, here: http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/politics2009/never_wrestle_with_a_pig.html

I guess I'm pleased you aren't a neo-con, though like other "libertarians" who are happy to violate the non-aggression principle when it comes to foreigners, the difference in this area seems more degree than principle.

As for the quiz (there are others on my site - try them!) -- yeah, I agree with you. All in good fun, that’s all. (Incidentally, I actually score higher on the one in question usually, but I "advertise" that particular score so as not to be confused with left-libertarian libertines.)

Taking from an example provided by MarkR, I'd make the comparison of Islamic Radicals to Japanese Kamikazes as a reason to either use all of our superior weaponry to help close the door on this current or any other conflicts with extreme decisive prejudice or to get out of these mini conventional military excursions and prepare the home front to become as secure as possible to keep them out.

How do you defeat an enemy full of religious zealots willing to strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them at will or storm positions willing to die en masse in the name of God? To make it worse, they are not particular to one piece of geography and there will never be a shortage of soldiers of Allah.

This fiasco has certainly diverted the lefties attention away from Darfur though, eh?!

Yea. Lets just all come home- guard the borders and be independent of it all- maybe in 1809 but not in 2009. Sorry, the world is no longer that bastion of independent nation states which can live independently of others. Like it or not- with the technologies we now have (not to mention interdependent economies) and they can gain access to we have to be involved. People use Vietnam as an example which I find ludicrous. Vietnam was fought without a coherent stategy and was eventually subdued utilizing the "only" thing which could work- mining the harbor and cutting off the Ho Chi Minh trail. Strategic global politics as practiced by Nixon won that war- YES WON THAT WAR! Domestic unrest never stopped American will(though there was war weariness with the needless loss of so much life). Watergate, and a weakening of the institutions involved in winning that war turned it around. We never lost a battle- though we lost many many men and women due to the stupid stratagies employed. Nixon was impeached or rather resigned and the Church comittee gutted our intelligence services and Carter furthered our malaise. Reagan reversed course- not by isolationism, but by an aggressive military build up and foriegn policy. The enemy we fight now WILL require western nations to become more involved and vigilant. WHile it would be nice to think we could do what is being advised here- it would not work. The world would come knocking and we would respond. I do not believe we are the ONLY force to fight this enemy- but we are the primary one. This world harbors evil and always will and only when good men (or nations) do nothing will evil prevail. The idyillic isolationism of a the past that never really did exist is futile dreaming. Possibly doing what Dan recommends I could fathom- but non involvement is not an option. One last thought I have is that there seems to be this idea that "nation building" on the American model is the problem. I believe that is a red herring. Nation building is a poor term- how about mini westernizing up to a point. In other words having an influence in these countries but allowing them to create their own governments. Sure its a risk- but I believe these governments or rather the people when they taste of freedom are more likely to become anathema to the extremes of terrorism- maybe not. But denying we have positive influence is I believe not true. Freedom haters will always say that- I believe that many people in these countries love freedom more than say the far left in America?