New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has criticized the Obama Administration's support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
That begs the question: what's our alternative? Friedman was already on record advocating a decrease of American involvement in Afghanistan. George Will goes perhaps a bit further: "America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units."
They might be right. But it seems to me that Friedman and Will are looking for a clean solution in a region where things are always messy. I'm not happy with the notion that the U.S. must be the world's policeman. However, I'm not prepared to abandon the war we were drawn into on September 11, 2001.
By continuing our military involvement in Afghanistan are we throwing good money (and lives) after bad?
The war that was less necessary for us to fight, the one in Iraq, seems (cross your fingers) as though it's headed toward a good solution. But that doesn't decrease the degree to which it was necessary to go to war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Our situation in Afghanistan is a classic dilemma, in the sense that none of the alternatives constitutes a good answer. That includes withdrawal. I'm willing to give Troop Surge II a chance.
Showing posts with label George Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Will. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
I hope you're right, Larry
I agree with what Larry Kudlow writes in this blog post about freedom of contract.
But I don't know that he necessarily has a basis for being so bold as to say "Republicans have clearly become the party of the private sector."
Many of us hope that that is the case. But it's one of the big unanswered questions going into the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Republicans' record, when they controlled the political branches of the federal government from 2003 to 2006, is not encouraging in that regard.
The 2003 Medicare expansion wasn't Obamacare, but it was a giant step in the wrong direction, right at the time we should have been preparing for the demographic time bomb that will soon hit the FDR and LBJ Ponzi schemes. We need to, at the very least reduce, and ideally phase out, Medicare and Social Security in their current form.
George Will provides a good summary of that situation, in case by some chance you might need a reminder.
I'd like to see this question asked of Republican candidates at every opportunity: will you indeed be the party of the private sector when you're back in power?
But I don't know that he necessarily has a basis for being so bold as to say "Republicans have clearly become the party of the private sector."
Many of us hope that that is the case. But it's one of the big unanswered questions going into the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Republicans' record, when they controlled the political branches of the federal government from 2003 to 2006, is not encouraging in that regard.
The 2003 Medicare expansion wasn't Obamacare, but it was a giant step in the wrong direction, right at the time we should have been preparing for the demographic time bomb that will soon hit the FDR and LBJ Ponzi schemes. We need to, at the very least reduce, and ideally phase out, Medicare and Social Security in their current form.
George Will provides a good summary of that situation, in case by some chance you might need a reminder.
I'd like to see this question asked of Republican candidates at every opportunity: will you indeed be the party of the private sector when you're back in power?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)