Recently, in an interview with the editors of National Review, Newt Gingrich said, among other things, the following:
If power in America continues to move away from the people, Gingrich says that the country risks “actually eliminating the uniqueness that has made America an exceptional nation. You begin drift into a world where nothing is stable.”
“The modern Left is essentially proto-totalitarian,” says Gingrich. President Obama, he says, is “an authentic representative of the intelligentsia. I think he likes Reveille for Radicals for a reason; he likes William Ayers for a reason. He didn’t notice 20 years of sermons for a reason.”
But is Obama that different from liberals like George McGovern? “Oh, yeah,” says Gingrich. “My sense is with McGovern, unequivocally, that he was a man from a different world. McGovern was a man who had grown up in pre-World War II America. And he grew up in South Dakota. Obama really grew up in the world of the modern American intelligentsia — he is a person of the left. The minute you accept that, you understand almost everything.”
Obama, Gingrich adds, “is a radical in the sense that the victory of those values would mean the end of American civilization as we know it.”
I am tempted to respond to this as the real Eugene Victor Debs might — you know, as a real radical back in the day, just to show the difference. But even the real Eugene Debs, pride of Terra Haute, Indiana, constantly extolled the founding documents of our Republic, and believed himself to be advocating on behalf of a greater expression of American democracy and civilization, not its diminution.
How about, therefore, evaluating Obama merely on the terms that Gingrich does, within the context of American political culture today, and compared to famous leftists he cites in his discussion, George McGovern and one of Obama’s early intellectual mentors, Saul Alinsky.
Gingrich is a smart guy but, as a trained historian, (which he reminded NR he indeed is), he should avoid hyperbole. How about a little scholarly sobriety? Let’s look at the Obama administration briefly in the three major areas:
Foreign policy/national security: Obama’s alternatives in Afghanistan, as he has stated are keep at least the current 68,000 troops there, or escalate with perhaps another 40,000. Or do something in between. Note that the proposal by George Will (Is he a radical, too?) for the withdrawal of U.S. ground troops and the mere use of drone attacks cum special forces forays isn’t even on the table. In Iraq, Obama is just completing the deal that Bush cut with the Iraqi government before he left office — American troops out by 2011. He’s pushing a bit around the edges with Israel, but, as David Frum and others suggest, probably to no avail. On Iran, he’s doing what most presidents would do, pushing hard on sanctions. Which probably won’t work. And then if Iran lies before the entire world and develops the bomb they have steadfastly denied they are even contemplating developing (first, think about the position that will put the Iranians in before the entire world), we’ll either bomb their facilities and thus, as Secretary of Defense Gates suggests, delay their program by a few years, or we won’t and move to the same kind of deterrence we practiced for decades with the Soviets and China. Just like every other president. Some radical. (One word about Gates — a stalwart Republican, of course, for decades. Now he serves as Obama’s top defense adviser. Has he suddenly become a dupe of this proto-totalitarian radical? Someone should get to Gates. Fast.)
Oh, we’ve got about, what, 725 military bases around the world. I don’t remember Obama announcing the closing of even one of them. The defense budget looks pretty robust too, except for cuts in weapons systems that his Republican opponent for the presidency, John McCain, also supported. Some radical.
Domestically: On healthcare. No single payer plan — never even remotely considered, let alone proposed — a half-assed public option if that — basically a subsidy/regulation program which, because Obama is afraid of the one trillion sticker shock number, will only cover at most 94% of the population rather than a near universal 98%. And nothing like essentially turning insurance companies into public utilities like in Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Some radical. In short, the guts of American healthcare–the employer based system that covers 60% of Americans (a number declining rapidly however) and Medicare, the single payer system for those over 65, stay exactly the same. (The Medicare cuts are trivial as the Republicans know, most dealing with the Advantage program). The architecture of American healthcare–for better or for worse, mostly for worse — remains intact. Insurance companies get more customers in return for assuming entirely rational regulations. Those customers because they cannot otherwise afford private insurance receive subsidies. Some radical.
Regarding cap-and-trade, the best he can get through Congress is, again, some half-assed plan watered down by his own party. Now, in order to get Lindsey Graham’s vote, it will also include nuclear power and offshore drilling, both vehemently opposed by “radical” environmentalists. This program — if implemented — still puts us behind every other advanced country in the world in addressing climate change. Even the Chinese are now massively expanding their solar and wind programs. Some radical.
On education, he isn’t any more radical in what he has outlined than that enacted in the comprehensive national plan that the Bush administration passed. He could stand to be more radical, although different people would argue over what the meaning of radical would be in this context. Gingrich himself, when not fearing that Obama will bring us the end times, met with him and… Al Sharpton in the Oval Office, and now tours the country with Sharpton on behalf of education “reform.”
On financial regulation: Barney Frank — whom the Right also believes to be a dangerous radical — has so preemptively gutted the relevant bills, in order to get Democratic support, that both Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post and Joe Nocera in the New York Times have practically laughed them off the stage. The banking industry — which opposes even these neutered proposals — is back stronger than ever, breaking its 2007 record for bonuses, opposing even the minimal reforms, and Obama and his Democratic Congress are, apparently terrified of them. Some radical.
On organized labor: Obama has essentially put no energy into passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which might give unions — the Democratic Party’s most stalwart interest group supporter — a chance to revive their fortunes. The bill is twisting in the wind while Obama pays it less than lip service. Hard to call yourself — and it should be hard for anybody else to call you — much of a radical if you don’t support a robust and resurgent labor movement. Some radical.
On civil liberties/Gitmo type issues: Obama has followed the Bush lead more often than not. He has thus infuriated lefty civil liberties types like David Cole and The Nation. Some radical.
On social issues: Obama opposes gay marriage, which puts him to the right of the campaign manager of his Republican opponent in 2008 and the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court which ratified the victory of his Republican predecessor in 2000. He has slow-walked repealing “don’t ask/don’t tell” despite the fact that 65-70% of Americans support its repeal in polling, and despite the fact that almost all of our allies permit openly homosexual soldiers to serve in their military. This has infuriated the gay community. On abortion, he is conventionally pro-choice, a view he shares with about half the population. His personal life, so far as anybody can tell, is about as “pro family” and emotionally stable as any president we have ever had. Some radical.
And we should note two final ironies in Gingrich’s remarks. George McGovern indeed was much more radical than Obama. During his 1972 presidential campaign, he proposed a 37% reduction in the defense budget. He also advocated that each American receive a $6500 minimum annual income. Indeed, McGovern was the most radical major party candidate who ever ran for president — an upper Midwestern leftist progressive. And McGovern has just co-written a book about how we should withdraw from Afghanistan every last American. (Of course, this is not to equate “radicalism” with “unamericanism” as Gingrich implies. McGovern was a war hero, too — but if we’re talking a dramatic transformation in American politics, McGovern has it all over Obama).
And Saul Alinsky, despite the titles of his books, was not very radical. He was a local disrupter, a hell raiser, a street demonstrator who pushed for stuff like… more traffic lights, more cops on the beat, and other very mundane indigenous incremental community reforms. He mistrusted politics and politicians and thought of reform as something very circumscribed and concrete. Everything was based upon local organizing, ground in the gritty city blocks of the lived community. Anything else, in his mind, was utopian — he was anti-Marxist, despite what ignorant people like Andy McCarthy say. Disruptive street actions in pursuit of the most incremental of ends were the extent of his radicalism. I know from the interview that Gingrich can cite the title of one of Alinsky’s books. But maybe Newt ought to read Alinsky.
In short, if the ascent of Obama — with the support of 53% of American voters — and the implementation of the program I describe above really is the “end of civilization”, as Newt insists, I’m both disappointed and relieved. Disappointed in that Obama’s own lack of imagination — combined with the cravenness of Senate Democrats and the sheer structural and procedural impediments of an already undemocratic Senate — make it almost impossible to generate social democratic outcomes in this country. But relieved, in that the end of civilization is pretty mundane. Today, for example, I took my daughter to school, read a couple of newspapers, had breakfast, did a couple of work related meetings, checked my fantasy football team — in short, pretty much just another day in early 21st century America for somebody fortunate enough, despite this recession, to have a full time job.
I never knew the end of civilization could be this good.
60 responses so far
1 Derek // Oct 16, 2009 at 8:14 am
So if Obama is not a “radical,” as the evidence suggests, what does that make those who oppose everything he does?
2 LB // Oct 16, 2009 at 9:06 am
@derek, it makes them completely detached from reality.
3 sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 am
derek:
It makes us “The Loyal Opposition.”
Our job is to be loyal to America while opposing Obama on all those things which run counter to our conservative philosophy.
Unlike the Left, we’re not going to undercut Obama on his role as Commander-in-Chief of our troops in the field. We may disagree on policy, but we’ll respect his role as Commander-in-Chief.
Unlike the Left, not going to dance and prance about how many Afghan kids are being killed or how many American troops are being maimed. We’re not going to march around chanting “Obama is killing Afghan mamas!” or anything of that sort. Unlike the Left, we’re not going to call Obama a murderer or war criminal, just because a Hellfire missile missed its target and killed a few civilians.
But on domestic issues and aspects of foreign policy not related to war, we’ll continue to advocate for OUR way of doing things.
Clear enough for you?
4 Churl // Oct 16, 2009 at 9:58 am
Ok, I think I’ve figured it out. Gingrich is one of the folks on Frum’s “Not Our Kind of People, Binky” list.
5 sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:03 am
Obama is not a radical who intends to take down Western civilization. That’s ridiculous.
What he is, is a doctrinaire liberal. Public opinion polls confirm that’s also the perception of him by a majority of Americans.
Today’s liberals don’t believe much in American exceptionalism. They see America as just one nation among many, not the nation that basically saved the world from totalitarian slavery twice, and is the only nation that can stand ready to save the world again.
Today’s liberals look longingly at the social democracies of Canada and the Netherlands. Those are their role models, just as Singapore is my role model. And they wish America would “catch up to the civilized world” and become a cradle-to-grave welfare state like many in Europe.
Is that counter to Western civilization? Not philosophically. But practically, that philosophy left the states that adopted it helpless to resist totalitarian aggression; and it left those states with chronically high unemployment and a hostility to innovation (the whole world uses American computers and operating systems, not French ones).
And that’s why I reject that philosophy as wrong for the United States.
At every time in human history, some nation was on top: The Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire–and now us.
If we falter, which other dynamic, ascendant power will succeed us to the role of world leadership? China? Saudi Arabia? Any other ascendant power you can name would make things worse for the U.S.
6 ottovbvs // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:16 am
Republican hyperbole (Gingrich’s is typical) and obstructionism is accomplishing two results. It’s reinforcing their position amongst the conservative base (who is a prisoner of whom is an open question) but reducing them to a caricature with the other 60% or so of the country. For some reason (see an article on this subject in this morning’s NYT) they believe this is a sound strategy for next year and 2012. You could argue that it has some limited merit next year when an energized base turning out in an off year could help you but I’ve even sceptical about this given the degree of loopiness they are having to embrace in order to bring about this outcome. Interestingly Pollsters average has the congressional Dems about five or six points ahead of Republicans so where they get this wave fantasy for next year from is a bit of a mystery. It seems to me the general sense of the country is that the adults are back in charge and they are reasonably confident Obama is going to make the right decisions about the economy (which is clearly on the turn) and overseas (notably in Afghanistan). The country is comfortable with the guy, outside of right wing screaming there isn’t the sense of continual mayhem that existed during most of Bush’s incumbency. In all sorts of ways I find the media emphasis on Obama’s problems surprising since it is clearly the GOP who have serious “end of civilization” problems. Basically the leadership, which is in any case increasingly ultra in outlook, has been taken prisoner by a strident base and outside drummers in the media before whom they seem to cower in complete terror. There’s a small sliver of the conservative intelligentsia personified by people like Brooks and Frum who can see where this is all leading but they show extreme signs of schizophrenia oscillating between at one moment pointing out the dangers of hyperbole and extremism like Gingrich’s or Beck’s, and then indulging in it themselves at the next. It all suggests a climate of erraticism and opportunism; people who are basically neither sensible or serious about the real needs of people or the challenges the country faces. The geographical divide in voting intentions is also very pronounced. We’ve not really seen anything like this extreme regional association with one party since the Democratic ascendency in the south that lasted until early sixties and civil rights legislation. Republicans outside of the intelligentsia seem oblivious of these issues (admittedly you have two thirds of the conservative intelligentsia encouraging this myopia) as you can tell from most of the comment from their leaders and the blogging chorus at venues like this. I think Obama and the Democrats have some Achilles heels, most notably the whole issue of pay in the financial industry which they would be most unwise to ignore, but these pale into insignificance by comparison with the Republican’s problems foremost amongst which is their continued underestimation of the president.
7 ottovbvs // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:39 am
sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:03 am
“If we falter, which other dynamic, ascendant power will succeed us to the role of world leadership?”
………..Unfortunately Sinz, what you don’t comprehend is a) we are already a power in inevitable relative decline and b) that decline is going to be hastened by militaristic over reach (essentially the same thing that caused the demise of the British, Russian, Spanish and Roman empires to which you refer)…….that you believe Singapore an essentially homogenous place about as big as Long Island has any relevance whatever for the US tells me just how detached from reality you are.
8 balconesfault // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:48 am
Unlike the Left, not going to dance and prance about how many Afghan kids are being killed or how many American troops are being maimed.
Yep. Damned lefties and their concern for foreign civilians.
The impact on U.S. strategy from civilian casualties caused by U.S. and NATO firepower “is much more important than I even realized,” Army General Stanley McChrystal said in an interview with the CBS program “60 Minutes” broadcast Sunday night.
“It is literally how we lose the war or how in many ways we win it,” McChrystal said. “If people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can’t be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically.”
9 Derek // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:59 am
The desire for revenge seems to be one of the driving forces in politics and I suspect that Republicans are angry over what they perceive was unjust treatment of Bush. Bush was the recipient of the Left’s perception that Clinton was treated unfairly. The attacks on Clinton were likely motivated by the impeachment of Nixon, and so on.
The right had an opportunity to break this cycle by simply being reasonable and showing they are superior to the revengeful Left. Instead they have tossed reason overboard and embraced the crazier fringes of the party. It will be a long walk in the wilderness I’m afraid.
10 ottovbvs // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:59 am
Interestingly Beinart has a largely accurate take on Obama reality. He’s a highly competent bore!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-15/getting-the-job-done/?cid=bs:archive2
11 ottovbvs // Oct 16, 2009 at 11:04 am
balconesfault // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:48 am
……..Sinz and his neo colonialist buddies think this is the late 19th century and not the early 21st……..it really is hard to conceive that anyone could be sufficiently brainless to make a statement like this:
“Unlike the Left, not going to dance and prance about how many Afghan kids are being killed or how many American troops are being maimed.”
………Unfortunately the brainless like the poor are always with us
12 Don’t hook your wagon to a falling star - mfarmer’s Diary - RedState // Oct 16, 2009 at 11:34 am
[...] Here is an article from the New Majority — David Frum’s effort to work with the system in order to influence the process. Pseudo-intellectuals have historically gotten this wrong — from Stalin to Hitler to Mussolini to Mao – but, of course, what’s happening in America will pale in comparison to the carnage caused by these madmen – however, what the broad-thinkers miss is the ideology driving these movements. It’s all some form of socialism that inevitably goes awry, because central planning is antithetical to our human nature. People flourish in freedom, having choices, not by central planning and social engineering. [...]
13 sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:07 pm
ottovbs:
Then answer my question!
Which aspiring power will succeed us to global leadership?
And is that a good thing?
Do you really think it’s good for America or the world, if America plays second fiddle to China for the rest of the 21st century? Do you approve?
14 sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Throughout history, there was ALWAYS one nation on top.
If YOU don’t want America to be the sole superpower anymore, then which nation(s) would YOU like it to be?
That’s a simple question, liberals. ANSWER IT!
15 balconesfault // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Do you really think it’s good for America or the world, if America plays second fiddle to China for the rest of the 21st century? Do you approve?
I reject your basic assumption – that unless the US continues to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military, that we will be playing second fiddle.
16 Reason60 // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Sinz54
“They see America as just one nation among many, not the nation that basically saved the world from totalitarian slavery twice, and is the only nation that can stand ready to save the world again”
It is nice, isn’t it, to see us that way? As the heroic figure, standing proud and alone against the forces of darkness?
But while it tickles our vanity to see ourself that way, it is incredibly destructive to our republicn (small r) values.
First, we did NOT singlehandedly save the world, ever. There is the matter of the 20 million Soviet soldiers who perished fighting Nazism, along with the Canadians, Australians, British, French, Scandinavians, and the Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese,and others who fought the Japanese.
This is important- although we were the dominant figure in most of the war, we formed alliances- we treated the other members of the alliance with respect, as equals.
Secondly- “stand ready to save the world”….Jesus God almighty! Is that the role that Washington/ Jefferson/ Hamilton envisioned for this republic? To be the world policeman, to be the white knight riding around the world righting every wrong, making kings, topping regimes, dictating tot he world how to run their affairs?
The notion that we are singularly poised to run the world, that we have so exceptional a vision as to be able to clearly arrange the affairs of the Afghan society is not only madness, but the very essence of the British Empire of Kipling and Victoria.
Maybe we should return to being a republican democracy, safe within our borders, treating our neighboring nations as friends and equals, only entangling ourselves in foreign affairs when absolutely necessary.
17 Reason60 // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:28 pm
“Throughout history, there was ALWAYS one nation on top.
If YOU don’t want America to be the sole superpower anymore, then which nation(s) would YOU like it to be?
That’s a simple question, liberals. ANSWER IT!”
Although I don’t fancy myself a liberal, I will answer anyway.
It isn’t true that there has always been ONE nation on top; The norm has always been a cluster of nations jostling for power and status- think of the British empire competing with the French Dutch Portugese and Spanish Empires during the Enlightenment, or America cometing with Argentina and Brazil during the 19th century (people forget often that for much of the 19th Century, Argentina was actually larger and more powerful than we were).
Consider what is happening in South America today- Brazil is emerging as a regional superpower, and is mediating in such disputes as the Honduras crisis, as well as playing a role between Venezuala’s belligerence and the rest of the nations.
They are handling issues that a generation ago, the Yankees would have settled through brute force and coercion; this is a good development, since we really don’t have a dog in most of these fights. Maintaining good relations with the South American nations, allowing them to resolve their issues without the committment of billions of dollars and thousands of troops, only strengthens us.
Maybe the day will come when we recognize that if a missile defense shield is needed for Eastern Europe, the Europeans are capable of erecting one.
18 LFC // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Throughout history, there was ALWAYS one nation on top.”
Really? Who was “on top” immediately following the fall of the Roman Empire? When they fell, who was the single most powerful state in the world?
Who was “on top” in Europe when the British and French alternatively slugged it out or made peace, while the Spanish were powerful, while at the same time Japan was unconquerable and so was China?
I think it’s much more accurate to say that there have been periods when one state has been on top, and other periods when that has not been the case. But perhaps that’s too nuanced for you.
19 Derek // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“But on domestic issues and aspects of foreign policy not related to war, we’ll continue to advocate for OUR way of doing things.
Clear enough for you?”
You haven’t really said anything but I’m certainly convinced that you believe in whatever it is you believe in, without question.
20 EscapeVelocity // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Where sinz is wrong is in not callinga radical New Leftist a Radical New Leftist, and redefining Radical to Mainstream Centrist Left Liberalism…..as if the country shifted Left, making them not radicals anymore….and making Christian Classical Liberals far Rightists.
While I agree the country has shifted Left because of the successful culture war waged since the 60s by the Left, especially in radically altering the education system and cirricula, history, etc.
It doesnt mean that it is now not radical. Just because Stalin was in power and no dissent was allowed doesnt mean that Stalinism wasnt radical.
21 LFC // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:52 pm
sinz54 said… Unlike the Left, not going to dance and prance about how many Afghan kids are being killed or how many American troops are being maimed. We’re not going to march around chanting “Obama is killing Afghan mamas!” or anything of that sort. Unlike the Left, we’re not going to call Obama a murderer or war criminal, just because a Hellfire missile missed its target and killed a few civilians.
It’s amazing. The death of innocent civilians turned large swatch of the Iraqi population against us just a few years ago, and the right STILL can’t absorb the lesson.
If we falter, which other dynamic, ascendant power will succeed us to the role of world leadership?
Wrong question. I think most of us like being on top and want to stay there. The question is, who has a better plan for staying on top; Obama or the neocon right? I’ll lay my money on Obama any day, especially since the neocon right has recently been overwhelmingly shown to be both wrong in theory and incompetent in practice.
22 LFC // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Ouch! “Swatch” was supposed to be “swaths”.
23 SFTor1 // Oct 16, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Sinz, perhaps you should consider getting a dog. It is not the same as an empire, but you can pet it and feed it and be the boss all the same. The dog will be grateful, much the opposite of all the ingrates around the world who don’t appreciate our American benevolence.
24 sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 1:53 pm
lfc:
The Islamic Empire.
During the Dark Ages, the Islamic Caliphates were the center of culture, enlightenment, science, and mathematics, while Europe had sunk into feudalism, brigandage, and barbarism. At its height, in the 7th century A.D., the Islamic Caliphate stretched from Spain to Pakistan.
25 balconesfault // Oct 16, 2009 at 2:07 pm
escapereality: because of the successful culture war waged since the 60s by the Left, especially in radically altering the education system and cirricula, history, etc.
And Hollywood! Don’t forget Hollywood!
Just being helpful. Sometimes delusional paranoiacs lose track of details during a rant.
It doesnt mean that it is now not radical. Just because Stalin was in power and no dissent was allowed doesnt mean that Stalinism wasnt radical.
Hmm – someone doesn’t understand the difference between a marketplace of ideas, and actual centralized control of information and ideas.
26 EscapeVelocity // Oct 16, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Sinz, I think you shoudl just leave this forum to the concern trolls. It is what it is.
27 Oneon1isto // Oct 16, 2009 at 2:27 pm
This article made me happy.
I keep seeing the President make pragmatic moves in response to realities. You may not like his decisions, but you can at least tell he’s connected to reality and trying to work things out. Life’s complicated, and at the state level usually waaaaay too complicated for my tastes.
His administration has passed the arm waggling test, hair pulling test. They’ve yet to do anything so egregious that I start maniacally waving my arms around whilst pulling at my hair.
This chat about American ascendancy/descent is well–I dunno. It’s very myopic. America = BIG aint the only way of looking at it.
A) American exceptionalism does not end when you’re not “on top”. That’s really weak exceptionalism if it does. I don’t hear any other countries whining like we do about this.
B) There are multiple ways of being on top. Militarily, technologically, financially, scientifically, etc.
C) American descent, in many ways, has to do with our overexpansion and meteoric ascent. What’s the old adage about Rome and the British Empire? It might be best for our long-term prospects to lose a bit of power.
D) The world’s a big, messy place with lots of holes. I look forward to Brazil and Indian ascendancy because the bigger they get, the more incentive they got to maintain their regional backyards. Regional powers aint no thang.
28 Oneon1isto // Oct 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm
See, wanting others to succeed is very patriotic. No?
29 spikeytx86 // Oct 16, 2009 at 4:16 pm
lfc!
“It’s amazing. The death of innocent civilians turned large swatch of the Iraqi population against us just a few years ago, and the right STILL can’t absorb the lesson. ”
Funny where are all of the concerned leftists/progressives marching in the streets against Iraq and Afghanistan now that Obama is President?
Obama is considering almost doubling our troop commitment in Afghanistan yet no multi-million man anti-war protests, none even on the horizon.
9 months into Obama’s presidency and we still have well over 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Where is the left wing outrage?
Or could it be that with the exception of real pacifists, the vast majority of the “Anti-War” movement seems to only concern themselves with wars when it is a Republican that is fighting it? Suddenly a Democrat is at war, and last I checked the Iraq war is still not approved by the U.N. or the international community, and all of the righteous anger is suddenly gone.
Could it be that the left gave two craps about injured civilians and our Troop Deaths but only cared about scoring political points!
I mean the left loves to talk about the over the top nature of the right since Obama has been elected, and rightly so, but they all seem to have about an 8 year blankspot from 2001-2009 regarding how Democrats and the Left behaved.
30 anniemargret // Oct 16, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Sinz, if you are worried about China, you should be. We all should be. While America keeps getting dragged into endless wars, our military which is already stretched to dangerous proportions will continue to be decimated. While Republicans like yourself keep alluding to our being the superpower of the world, but continue to fail to see the connection between ‘regime change’ followed by nation-building, then you have lost the argument.
As I wrote recently, China is well on its way to renewable energy sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China), and will not be dependent on oil reserves, mostly in the Middle East or Venezuela. While we continue on with the “Bush doctrine” not only does our military suffer for it, but our economy as well. They are intertwined, not independent of each other.
Your smear against the 60 million Americans who voted for Obama, primarily to end the insanity of their foreign policy, is not only patently absurd, it is insulting. By and far, Americans sadly understood that thuggish, ‘either you’re with us or against us’ threats only heighten the hatred the Bush years brought upon us, and if Republicans think we are going to go back to that idiocy, you’re dreaming.
Republicans are still sneering at diplomacy and/or forging alliances. They want to carry the Big Stick, but don’t want to speak softly. Their imprint was and still is, bomb first, ask questions later, and then proceed to insult Americans who think well though out, well advised, wisely strategic paths are better than their need to pound their chests to make sure everyone knows they’re there.
The sun finally set upon the British Empire, the Roman Empire fell from within before it was cored from without, and with this irrational attitude, this country will fall unless wiser, less emotional heads lead the way. We are lagging backwards in science and math, right wingers don’t believe we need renewable energy, (let’s keep fighting for oil), and our dollar keeps falling. There’s more to being a ’superpower’ than Empire-building. Oh….and I think that’s not exactly a ‘conservative’ principle anyway
31 anniemargret // Oct 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Spikey: This is one Democrat who does NOT support more troops into Afghanistan. After eight years, it is now useless. A waste of human and financial resources. It will be another Vietnam. The government is corrupt and the local tribes are not on our side. There will be no cheering in the streets. And when that minority of al Quaeda moves over to Pakistan, will we send troops there too?
32 spikeytx86 // Oct 16, 2009 at 5:00 pm
anniemargret!
Alright. But where are the protests and agitation? Let’s be honest here, if this were President McCain contemplating doubling our forces in Afghanistan do you think the anti-war crowd would be this quiet?
We both know the answer to that.
As for my opinion on Afghanistan I think we should either go big or go home but no more half assing it. I did not like the way Pres. Bush has handled Afghanistan for several years. I actually was hopeful that Obama would do the right thing in Afghanistan, I supported his commitment to send 17,000 more troops and I was happy with the people he put in charge of defense and the war. But since he has taken withdrawl off the table he needs to go big and do what is needed.
Afghanistan is not an unwinnable war by any means. People like to talk about how the soviets lost their but they fail to mention why they lost. It was because we and other allies were pouring the equivalent of billions of dollars in aid as well as state of the art weaponry and top notch training and advising. Before we quietly intervened the Soviets were winning. They had run roughshod through the country and if we had not stepped in Afghanistan would have been yet another conquered Soviet satellite in central Asia.
The Taliban do not have billions of dollars, state of the art weaponry, and training and advising from some of the best warriors in the world. They can be beat.
As for the people and war lords, they respond to power, they have seen superpowers come and go and are looking to make the best deal for themselves in the long term. If they don’t believe we will stay and protect them for the long term they will cut a deal with the Taliban. But if we can show them we won’t bug out and are committed to protecting the people and improving their lives they will gravitate to us, just like they did in the beginning of the campaign.
In order to win we will need to double our troop levels, which should go with out saying since Afghanistan has the same population as Iraq and it took nearly three times the amount of troops we have in Afghanistan now to stabilize Iraq.
We also will need to undertake a massive nation building campaign on the scale of the Marshall plan. Inflation adjusting we spent about $10,000 for every man women and child in the nations we helped. We need to spend at least this amount in Afghanistan which would be about $300 billion over ten years. This money should be spent on universal literacy programs, schools, hospitals, roads, universities, infrastructure, electrification, water projects, agriculture, health care, telecommunication, housing, transportation, as well money to develop modern industries in the country.
So we need a massive troop and resource commitment to Afghanistan, as well as a crack counter-insurgency strategy to win in Afghanistan. This should be the prime undertaking our Nation endeavors in abroad over the next ten years.
And I would be willing to pay a “Victory Tax” of 2% (it would raise about $1.5 trillion over ten years) on all income, and on the first dollar, to support it as well.
But if we are not willing to do what is necessary to win then yes I think we should leave. Pursuing the status quo and sacrificing thousands more for us to lose is not on option I am willing to support.
Go big or go home.
33 SFTor1 // Oct 16, 2009 at 6:10 pm
spikeyTX says: “Funny where are all of the concerned leftists/progressives marching in the streets against Iraq and Afghanistan now that Obama is President?”
The protests were against starting a war against Iraq. The invasion (or police action) against Afghanistan was tolerated as a justifiable response to 9/11 against Al-Qaeda and those who gave them shelter.
Go big or go home? The Soviets had 500,000 troops in Afghanistan for several years and had nothing to show for it in the end. So I’m afraid the reality is more likely “go big and go home anyway.”
I would suggest that the left is still giving Obama some time to get things sorted out in Afghanistan. If nothing is done to get out rather quickly it is likely that the disagreement will be taken to the streets again.
34 SFTor1 // Oct 16, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Yes, spikey, I read your entire post. Why do I not think that the U.S. will do any better than the Russians? Probably because there will be money flowing to the Taliban (fka Mujahedeen) this time around too. Not from us, but from Pakistan, Arabian and Moslem countries and organizations, and perhaps fromsome of the other Stans. There will be support to be had. You can count on it.
35 anniemargret // Oct 16, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Spikey! The protests will never come unless and until there is a draft. I am a child of the 60s and my boyfriend died in Vietnam. No one really cared that much about that war until the coffins were televised. Then when the draft hit home, everyone cared very much.
Yes, there are probably some Democrats that will support anything President Obama does – we saw and still see that with George Bush – these are not true patriots but ideologues. I’m not one of them. I think he is weighing the good against the bad, but I don’t feel Afghanistan is worth the “go big.”
This is a sad commentary, but true, of course. It is very easy to sit in an armchair and decide about war. War is hell. It’s too easy to send them in without thoroughly looking at the ramifications – all of them; especially the law of unintended consequences.
Robert E. Lee: “It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
36 spikeytx86 // Oct 16, 2009 at 7:06 pm
anniemargret!
Though I disagree with your views, I do respect them and I am sorry for your loss during the Vietnam war. I have friends and family in uniform and I could not imagine losing any of them.
I think the main problem with the Vietnam war is not that it was inherently unwinnable, it wasn’t, it was that politicians micro-managed the war and persistently ignored the commanders on the ground.
I don’t claim to be a Foreign Policy genius. But if I was President and the guy I put in charge to evaluate the situation and give it to me straight on what is needed to win comes back to me with a plan I am going to listen to him.
The President has already ruled out your position of withdrawal. So really there are two options left. The status quo and McChrystal’s plan. And we already know what the status quo has gotten us.
37 sinz54 // Oct 16, 2009 at 7:37 pm
anniemargaret:
As you know,
I’m not a fan of Obama, and I didn’t vote for Obama.
But I hope for the sake of our nation that he succeeds in Afghanistan.
The alternative of a failed state in which al-Qaeda is romping like kids at Disney World is just too awful.
So let’s hope that his way forward turns out right.
Of course, if it doesn’t,
then we conservatives will point out some alternatives.
38 anniemargret // Oct 16, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Sinz: For the hope of our nation, and our world, I hope we don’t fail either. But my concern remains… al quaeda is not an army or country to conquer or defeat. It’s cells are in process in countries all over the world, and if driven from Afghanistan they go then to Pakistan, then to… ? How does a highly professional military like the U.S. has defeat this type of enemy? We keep pushing them back? To where, for how long, and how much? What are the costs of such a war? My own feeling is that terrorist cells should be an internationally connected network of highly trained intelligence working together in a police situation, instead of spreading our military thin.
I am reading now some reports that McChrystal now wants much more than extra 40,000 – it may be closer to 60-80,000 . We will eventually exhaust our reserves. There has to be a better way to fight this type of enemy instead of conventional warfare. In this case, too, however, we have the locals despising us. We have been there now for nearly 8 years – we are occupiers. No country on earth would want a foreign military on their shores for 8 years. Our drones are killing civilians, and while we can dispense that as ‘collateral’ – these are innocent human beings. And the more destruction we sow there, the less likely we will have the support we need.
I am no military analyst, but the thought of our forces being mired there for another 5-10 years is sickening to me – particularly when the ‘cells’ are continuing to form around the world. Perhaps they ought to rehire those 2 dozen or so Arab linguists who were fired because they were gay. hmmm…now there’s a start.
39 spikeytx86 // Oct 17, 2009 at 12:36 am
By 2011 we will have no more then 40,000 troops left in Iraq. Even with McChrystals request of 40,000 additional troops to our already 68,000 in Afghanistan, that would mean 148,000 total troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq. During the 2003- 2011 period we averaged about 180,000 troops in both countries.
That means from 2011 on we would be looking at an operating tempo that is over 40,000 troops fewer then we have been working with from 2003-2011. And odd’s are we will be under 20,000 troops in Iraq by 2015. So by mid decade it could be 60,000 or 1/3 fewer troops then during this past decade.
Plus we have 100,000 additional Army and Marine troops we have added to the Active Duty baseline. So if we were to execute McChrystal’s strategy we would hardly be stretching or exhausting our forces.
As to those 60-80 thousand troops you were speaking with, yes that’s what he would prefer but he understands troop resources and Washington Politics. 40,000 is the minimum to get the job done so he went with 40,000 troops.
Under Bush the mantra was that Bush was disregarding the views of his Generals and commanders on the ground. Now that Obama is President suddenly the Commanders on the ground don’t know what there talking about and we should listen to the political suits back in Washington.
40 SFTor1 // Oct 17, 2009 at 1:09 am
Spikey, we’re back to the Soviets. 500,000 men for years, and failure.
41 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 17, 2009 at 1:16 am
What exactly would constitute “success” in Afghanistan?
Is it really reasonable to expect America to build a stable, functioning government there? And does that truly matter if Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan anyway?
What cost in lives and money should the country be expected to pay in order to prevent Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan when so many other failed states around the world are ripe for an Al Qaeda presence?
42 WildWilly // Oct 17, 2009 at 1:18 am
sinz:
It would be fantastic if Afghanistan and a number of other problems were resolved in a positive way. However, each war sows the seeds for the next. And, I for one don’t believe that we will win this one. In the past, America has succeeded when as a people we were all dedicated to accomplishing something. That isn’t the case now and even if it was we are betting with borrowed chips.
History is agnostic. It doesn’t care a whit about whether you are/were an empire that ruled the world. When a country is running on fumes, has lost team cohesiveness and is making bad decisions, the result can be predicted with certainty. It’s time to accept our limitations and begin to create a new reality for our society that is more in line with our capabilities and needs.
43 SFTor1 // Oct 17, 2009 at 1:31 am
SFTor said: “Sinz, perhaps you should consider getting a dog.”
Sinz, that was a condescending comment, and you deserve better. You have my apologies.
44 SFTor1 // Oct 17, 2009 at 1:44 am
wildwilly says: “It’s time to accept our limitations…” I would restate it: “It’s time to accept the limitations of war as a political instrument to advance U.S. interests.” War as a cure-all is too blunt and too disruptive an instrument to meet our challenges.
I think we have plenty to offer the world. We need to attract smart people to government and the foreign service in particular. Some money will need to be spent to attract this talent. We are fine with this in the private sector, so I don’t see why we should hesitate in the public sector. We need to open markets and build alliances. We need economic and scientific collaboration. We need to redirect military budgets to foreign assistance, for instance to Afghanistan. Come on, we are outspending the rest of the world combined. We can shave a little here and there. We need to show leadership and vision.
Job one: a stewardship plan for the world’s ocean fishery management, and development of marine protection zones. We should do this by taking money from climate change funding, which is really a distant number two priority, if a priority at all.
We need to start working the room.
45 spikeytx86 // Oct 17, 2009 at 3:04 am
sftor1 !
The soviets never had 500,000 troops in Afghanistan. They never had more then 120,000 in country at any one time.
And the only reason the soviets lost is because they were fighting against a multi-billion dollar* (today’s dollars) CIA trained force with state of the art weaponry. Before us and allies turned up the heat the Soviets were well on there way to victory. The soviets had tens upon tens of thousands of casualties. We have a few thousand dead and injured from Afghanistan and we have been their for nearly as long as they were.
The Soviets invaded to support their communist client government in Kabul, tighten it’s grip on Central Asia, and in the long term potentially threaten the US Ally Pakistan and perhaps gain a long and much coveted warm water port.
We invaded after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Al-Qaeda who was harbored by the Taliban. We are still there because we want to A. Keep Al-Qaeda out B. Keep the Taliban down and C. establish at least a semi-democratic Government that will respect it’s people and neighbors and protect minority populations and women and eventually stand on it’s own two feet.
We have a popular international mandate to be there and are joined by a robust NATO force and scores of other forces from numerous other nations.
There is nothing about our mission in Afghanistan that remotely resembles the Soviet Experience.
Afghanistan is nothing like our Vietnam experience as well. Don’t take my word for it, or the Vietnam Vet’s John McCain’s word for it, take it from a Popular Democratic Vietnam Vet Bob Kerry.
Afghanistan is Afghanistan. It is not a quagmire. It is fully winnable.
46 spikeytx86 // Oct 17, 2009 at 3:10 am
spartacusisnotdead!
“What exactly would constitute “success” in Afghanistan?
Is it really reasonable to expect America to build a stable, functioning government there? And does that truly matter if Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan anyway?
What cost in lives and money should the country be expected to pay in order to prevent Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan when so many other failed states around the world are ripe for an Al Qaeda presence?”
If we are not willing to stand our ground and win the war in the country that Attacked us what makes you think we are going to take Al-Qaeda out in other lands for crying out loud?
Why did we rebuild Germany? The Nazi’s were gone. All the Fascists were in Spain and Argentina. Why didn’t we leave Germany and attack Fascist and Nazi Hold Outs their instead?
So what if the Communists took over Germany? We could have deterred them from France and Italy. Besides the Communists never attacked us on 12/7 the fascists did!
47 sinz54 // Oct 17, 2009 at 9:24 am
anniemargaret:
We can’t win that type of global war. Not without nuclear weapons anyway.
The ONLY solution–and both Obama and Bush 43 agree on it!–is to interrupt the process of radicalization by which young Muslim men are being suckered into joining terrorist groups. Otherwise, we’ll never see the end of terrorism.
Radical imams and madrassas, well-financed with petrodollars by Iran and “our friend and ally” Saudi Arabia, are pouring poison into the hearts of young Muslim men. They are telling them that they must become martyrs for a cause that everybody else knows is false.
What they are doing to these young Muslim men bears a striking resemblance to how domestic gangs and drug pushers and pimps recruit their young suckers. And it has to be fought the same way: Muslim parents must turn their sons away from radicalism. Society has to give these young Muslim men positive outlets–not just jobs, but a POLITICAL stake in democracy. Etc.
I think both liberals and conservatives are united on this much at least: We must institute energy and economic policies that disempower the Muslim oil sheiks of the Middle East. Some of the uses of their petrodollars are aimed at America’s throat.
48 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 17, 2009 at 4:14 pm
spikeytx86 wrote: “If we are not willing to stand our ground and win the war in the country that Attacked us what makes you think we are going to take Al-Qaeda out in other lands for crying out loud?”
Well, still no one has answered my initial question: What constitutes “success” or a “win” in Afghanistan. You’ve simply said we need to stand our ground and win, but you haven’t defined winning.
Moreover, Afghanistan did not attack us. Instead, we were attacked by some terrorists who were living and training in Afghanistan. Those terrorists no longer live or train there. Instead, they are now living and training in Pakistan. The U.S. could stay in Afghanistan for the next 100 years and there would be no effect on the terrorists in Pakistan.
Even if it were possible to build a successful government in Afghanistan (something that has never been done in its entire history), the terrorists could simply remain in Pakistan or move to some other more hospitable location such as Yemen or Somalia.
Incidentally, the comparisons between Afghanistan and Japan or Germany reflect a poor understanding of the histories of these countries. Japan and Germany had funtioning governments and economies to be rebuilt. The same cannot be said of Afghanistan. We are not “re-building” a nation in Afghanistan; we are trying to “create” a nation there, and that is something we, nor anyone else, has ever done successfully.
49 spikeytx86 // Oct 17, 2009 at 4:29 pm
1. Before the Soviets invaded and Butchered the country and the Taliban raped it Afghanistan had a fairly stable Government, one that looked much like Pakistans during the time. Not a model Government by any means but it was stable and not exporting Terror or Communism. It wasn’t even a Communist satellite until the seventy’s. So it’s not an impossible feat.
2. Standard for success: At minimum a semi-democratic Government that respects minority populations and women, that has a military that can put down revolts and keep Al Qaeda out, and one that can stand on it’s own feet.
3. Afghanistan did attack us. The Government knowingly harbored and supported Al Qaeda. They allowed terrorists who attacked us and other nations to train and seek refuge their. Even after 9/11 they still refused to expel them. They were as complicit as bin laden.
50 anniemargret // Oct 17, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Sinz…..I agree. But aren’t we beholden to the ‘petrodollars’ and isn’t that exactly where the problem really lies? I haven’t heard anyone yet address the issue of our being beholden to Middle East oil . Isn’t that why we are in Iraq? Or at least a partial answer why we are there? They are the second largest oil producing country in that part of the world . I believe we invaded Iraq because primarily it was ‘regime change’ to try and install a pro-western democratic government that would be less of an enemy to Israel, but also to have a more secure access to their oil . We are not a nation that appears to want to get off the oil carousel.
But if we did…say, we strengthen our capacity to forge ahead to renewable energy…and by doing so undercut the power of the oilmeisters, we become 1) self-independent for energy 2) less beholden to monstrous oil dictators and 3) create jobs and a new industry, thereby strengthening our infrastructure and our dollar.
What say you, oh wise Republicans?
51 anniemargret // Oct 17, 2009 at 6:50 pm
And before anyone accuses me that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam…well, yes…of course. He was part of the package deal. He gets thrown out, and we get the rest of what we really wanted. He could have, of course, *in time* (not imminent) gotten his nuclear capability, but that was not the primary reason! There was no imminent threat…so the truth lies elsewhere – as I listed above.
52 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“Standard for success: At minimum a semi-democratic Government that respects minority populations and women, that has a military that can put down revolts and keep Al Qaeda out, and one that can stand on it’s own feet.”
Democracy in Afghanistan and respect for minority populations are laudable, but they’re not worth thousands of American lives and the bankruptcy of the U.S. And, as I pointed out, Al Qaeda could remain outside of Afghanistan for the next 100 years and we’d still have a problem because they are now living and training in Pakistan. The removal of a terrorist threat from a specific piece of land does not eliminate that threat; the terrorists simply move to more hospitable land. That is the very nature of non-state terrorists.
As for an Afghan government that can stand on its own, no other outside force has ever produced that and there is no evidence that we are capable of producing it either. We’ve spent 8 years, over a trillion dollars, thousands of dead solders and tens of thousands of wounded soldiers trying to establish stable governments in societies we do not understand. This is beyond our capability.
I never thought I’d say this, but maybe, on this issue, George W. knew much more than many of us gave him credit for. While he deserves blame for not sending more troops to Tora Bora when we had a good chance of killing OBL, he seems to have understood the futility of sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Afghanistan and getting bogged down like the British and the Soviets. Our goal in Afghanistan was to destroy Al Qaeda – not build a stable country. That goal has been achieved.
53 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Please read these and react:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/the-conservative-case-for-cutting-our-losses.html#more
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/the-conservative-case-for-cutting-our-losses-ii.html
54 spikeytx86 // Oct 17, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Anniemargaret!
Of course securing that oil flowed freely from Iraq was one of the reasons. Securing access to energy resources in the Middle East has been official policy since the Carter administration.
We went into Iraq for a lot of reasons, not very well articulated I will grant you, but there were a lot of reasons we went in.
Now I am not going to get into whether we should or should not of invaded Iraq. I think it’s fair to say all of our views are pretty hardened on that front.
As for forging ahead to eliminating our dependence on Foreign Oil you can count me in. I am for a carbon tax and a high gas tax, although I would refund 100% of the money by reducing the Payroll Tax and the income tax.
I would rather tax things we want less of then things we want more of like Jobs and Investment.
I don’t disagree with Obama on everything. I am amenable to about 60-70% of his health care plan, I support his efforts to get us off of oil, but I am against his means of achieving it (Cap and Trade will do two things, create yet another speculative bubble, and provide hundreds of billions of giveaway’s to pet industries). I have approved of his handling of Afghanistan until recently as well.
55 spikeytx86 // Oct 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“Of course securing that oil flowed freely from Iraq was one of the reasons.”
securing should be ensuring*
56 SFTor1 // Oct 18, 2009 at 12:22 am
spikey, my number was for the total number of Russian troops who cycled through Afghansistan. I was wrong. Dang, I almost feel mortal.
57 anniemargret // Oct 18, 2009 at 9:44 am
Yes, a gas tax. Americans are self-indulgent. We need to be prodded. When the gas mini-crisis started last year, suddenly Americans stopped using their cars so much, or started thinking of trading in their gas guzzlers for smaller more efficient cars – hybrids, etc… No one is going to tell me that this country of ‘can-do’s’ cannot create a car that is not gas-oriented, and affordable, stylish and ’sexy’ like we used to make American cars. Hey, I remember those those GTOs and Firebirds and the Thunderbirds! It used to be *fun* to buy a car.
Create an atmosphere of national sacrifice, the same way FDR did during WWII when he got the majority of Americans on board to sacrifice with rationing and bonds and political support to fight Nazis – ‘Rosie the Riveter” etc… America needs a common theme – a can-do, muscle attitude. Create more renewable energy certifications in community colleges and degrees in universities, and then create new industries so we can put our young people to work. Force us off foreign oil. Stop the wars for oil, which are adding to the deficit every minute of every day. Take care of the vets when they return home, and limit the military to winnable and absolutely necessary situations only. Their power is finite.
Force the situation. Don’t make it an either-or proposition. Force the tax. Tax high-sugary drinks, alcohol, cigarettes. (thing we really don’t need but are luxuries)…
And get out of Afghanistan. Put the billions into better intelligence networking, hire more Arab linguists, and forge strong alliances and cooperation with countries to help us stop them instead of our troops being sent far and wide, battling for countries that don’t even have stabilized governments or a cohesive society and who despise our presence. Put more money into fighting cyberterrorism -
58 anniemargret // Oct 18, 2009 at 9:55 am
Btw….right now in American high schools and colleges the thrust is to learn Spanish. While that might be nice given the huge influence now of Latinos in our society and business, we should be pushing for our students to learn Arabic. Perhaps give them some extra bonus if they should do so. Put more emphasis on cyberterrorism which has potential to be more damaging to our society than some terrorists putting together fissile materials to bomb. Urge more students to go into the sciences, particularly math and climate science – these are positive directions I think.
59 spikeytx86 // Oct 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Anniemargret I practically agree with you 100 (take out the leave Afghanistan and it is 100% LOL)
I live in El Paso, TX so I know the need to learn at least basic Spanish however we do need a big push to learn Arabic, Farsi, other Central Asian languages, and Mandarin. We need an all out effort to get our young people into roles we vitally need for National Security just like we did during the Cold War.
60 Skull / Bones » Blog Archive » Continual battles against the ahistorical: the Republican Party of 1948 through the 50s // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm
[...] Newt Gingrich singing the praises of George McGovern in order to suggest that unlike Barack Obama, he was decent and pro-American. The one that keeps [...]
You must log in to post a comment.