E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, September 17, 2012

The war in Afghanistan

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)


When Leftists (including President Obama) whine about the budgetary decisions of the Bush administration, they usually mention "two wars" and tax cuts, and sometimes they will mention the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When they lump the war in Afghanistan with the other things, it raises serious questions about whether they "get it" regarding the importance of the War on Terror and the legacy of 9/11.

We can debate the wisdom of the tax cuts and the expansion of Medicare, and the war in Iraq was a war where we pre-emptively attacked another sovereign nation and forced regime change. We can debate whether these three were necessary or wise. It is foolish and dangerous to lump the war in Afghanistan with the other three things.

This should not have to be pointed out, but we were attacked on September 11 - eleven years ago this past Tuesday. We were attacked without provocation by Al-Qaeda. Their attack was not simply an act of war. It was a war crime. Rather than targeting a military base, Al-Qaeda targeted civilians with the intention of murdering as many noncombatants as possible.

In response, we resolved to go get the war criminals responsible for this atrocity. They were hiding in Afghanistan, sheltered by the oppressive Taliban regime. We asked Afghanistan to hand over the war criminals to us and they petulantly refused. In response, we were forced to invade and destroy Al-Qaeda's network ourselves.

What is the point? The point is this: We had a choice as to whether to implement the tax cuts and the Medicare expansion. We had a choice as to whether to invade Iraq. We did not have a choice as to whether to invade Afghanistan. That was not a war we wanted, but it was a war we had to fight. Not invading Afghanistan was never an option. Had we done nothing, it would have only guaranteed another 9/11.

Does President Obama understand why we had to invade Afghanistan to attack the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Obama's premise is that we did not spend as much energy on Afghanistan as we should have, and to some extent he was right. But when he and his fellow Leftists lump Afghanistan in with the other three things as if it was a war of choice, it raises serious questions about whether he really "gets it" or whether he grudgingly did the right thing only because it was politically necessary. We cannot afford a President who thinks like that.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.