Ann Coulter vs. Bill Kristol: Beginnings of a Conservative Schism? (Liberal's dream)

Politics Daily ^ | 07/08/2010 | Analysis by Matt Lewis

[SeekAndFind]

Ann Coulter's recent column "Bill Kristol Must Resign" may have officially kicked off the next great schism within the conservative movement. At issue is the war in Afghanistan -- and, more specifically, whether Republicans should support President Obama's approach to a conflict that has now lasted for Americans far longer than World War II.

Mocking neoconservatives, Coulter wrote: "Bill Kristol [editor of The Weekly Standard] and Liz Cheney have demanded that [Michael] Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)"

Coulter failed at convincing Kristol to resign -- she never says from what. In fact, channeling Michael Steele, who vows to stay on as party chief, Kristol responded: "I ain't going anywhere." But she may have succeeded at advancing a major debate.

Until now, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule, adhered to by most on the right, that conservative Republicans would vigorously oppose Obama's liberal domestic policies while supporting his efforts to win in Afghanistan. After all, Republicans had staunchly backed George W. Bush when he made the case for fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Changing course now would seem craven -- playing politics with national security. And so, in foreign policy, Obama was criticized from the right only when he appeared to be showing weakness, not when he displayed toughness.

But recent comments from Steele have sparked a debate that was probably long overdue. Notwithstanding the fact that Steele almost immediately backtracked, some conservatives began defending the substance of Steele's comments. "Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right," Coulter wrote. "Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well."

This is a serious point. As Politics Daily's own David Corn recently wrote:

The war in Afghanistan is President Obama's war and partly of the president's choosing. Sure, Obama inherited the conflict. Bush initiated the military action in Afghanistan after 9/11 -- and then veered into Iraq before the war in Afghanistan was resolved. Yet Obama, after much deliberation, decided to change the nature of the Afghanistan war. In December, following many weeks of review, he announced he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and he embraced the counterinsurgency plan proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was then commanding U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

There was always skepticism on the left about Obama's decision to escalate the war -- perhaps even to waging war there in the first place. And if the commander in chief is losing any significant portion of the right when it comes to Afghanistan, his policies could be on perilous ground.

One of the ideas advanced by Coulter is that Bush wisely kept a relatively small footprint in Afghanistan, while choosing instead to invade Iraq -- terrain more hospitable for a traditional ground war. There is some revisionism at work here, and it must be said that prominent voices, like Liz Cheney's (not to mention Gen. David Petraeus'), were raised in support of the surge in Afghanistan. Still, it's fair to broach the question raised by Steele and Coulter: Would Bush be doing anything differently today in terms of Afghanistan?

Or is Coulter's position a less high-minded one? After a decade of defending Bush's actions, and getting beat up for it, are Republicans now saying it's time for a Democratic president to get the Bush treatment?

Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire. George Will and Tony Blankley have raised that very point. But Coulter has made it in a way that directly -- and personally -- challenges conservative orthodoxy. And it's catching on. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tweeted Coulter's column out to his followers, adding, "Thank you, Ann Coulter. She speaks out against the GOP now being for permanent war. She is right."

And if conservatives are asked to choose sides between, say, the elected leader of the Republican National Committee (Steele) and the titular head of the Democratic National Committee (Obama), how many will decide that Obama's Afghanistan policies are not worth the trouble? Maybe it was unavoidable, but it does seem as if Coulter's comments today hearken back to the 1990s -- when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office -- and conservatives criticized his efforts in places like Bosnia and Kosovo as "nation building."

Clearly, things have changed since 2008, when candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney represented the mainstream viewpoint, and when Congressman Ron Paul was essentially mocked for his isolationist tendencies and his desire for a "humble foreign policy." Today, Paul's positions are enjoying resurgence, and his son, Rand Paul, is poised to be elected to the U.S. Senate. How quickly things change.

Regardless, debating this policy is healthy, and conservatives are justified to have this discussion. There are conservative arguments to be made for -- or against -- continuing the war in Afghanistan, just as I believe a principled conservative case could have been made (and was, in some quarters) against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a debate that conservatives, and all Americans, should keep having. War is not something to be entered into lightly; nor should support for it ever be contingent on whether the commander in chief has a D after his name, or an R.

[FrdmLvr]

...isn’t the first and won’t be the last....

[lexington minuteman 1775]

I DON’T need either of these two to tell me what or how to think. So let them flame away at each other.

[fish hawk]

Schism my butt. It’s Conservative vs RINO

[GonzoGOP]

Not much of a fight. I’m thinking Ann by a TKO in round 1.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Coulter = 1

Kristal = 0

[Old Retired Army Guy]

I count myself as about as conservative as you get, but I am with Coulter on this one. I have a son who is a Special Forces officer in Afghanistan who is trying to pursue this war with one hand tied behind his back (Rules of Engagement). You can bet that Obama will not want to have 100,000 in Afghanistan when he is running for reelection in 2012. Therefore, we might as well leave now rather than later and keep our casualties to a minimum in a cause that can’t be won. I would bet anything that Karzai and his cronies are shoveling money into foreign bank accounts getting ready for that day they get out.

[circlecity]

"Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire."

"Turn into"? Hey, when you've been in a war for 8 years with no end in sight and not even any real exit strategy you are in a quagmire. At this point, Obama's quagmire.

[Maelstorm]

I think we need to stop jumping on what liberals report conservatives saying before we read exactly what they said. It was pretty clear when I read what Michael Steele said that he wasn’t saying “This was a war of Obama’s choosing”. The context of what he said was clearly that Obama was choosing to engage the War in Afghanistan in a way that was not working. I don’t think that Steele has served himself well as GOP chair but this time I think he was clearly taken out of context. I don’t really care about Ann or Kristol. Sometimes I agree with both of them. They both are insular types largely products of the circles they travel in.

[altura]

Agree with Ann on this one.

The cries from liberals seeking to discredit Bush’s efforts in Iraq, wailing that we should be in Afghanistan instead looking for Osama, penetrated the tiny brain of Barak Obama.

And I do think it’s a tiny brain, unlike Rush who thinks he knows what he’s doing.

Anyway, it is obama’s war and should not be continued with Obama as the CIC.

[G Larry]

Coulter and Steele both need to cool their jets and fade into the background for a while, lest the media continue baiting the situation.

Gen. Petreaus has the best chance at success in Afghanistan, having relaxed the rules of engagement.

Republicans need to focus on regaining the House and Senate and defeating Obama’s domestic agenda.

[Dansong]

It's Coulter 1 and Liz Cheney 0, too. I agree with Ann. I think Conservatives should think long and hard about getting the heck out of Afghanistan. Man, what a quandary that would put the Dems in...

[AnnaZ]

I take it you're not calling the author a liberal? (He isn't.)

[altura]

That would be fun to watch.

Republicans as doves, Liberals trying to play the hawk crowd.

It would be funny but this is a serious issue, as per the post by a parent of a son in Afghanistan.

[ZULU]

I never liked Crystal. He is simply not a genuine conservative. Sort of reminds me of that George Will feller.

[Mere Survival]

Put me down in the Coulter/Buchanan/Paleo-conservative column that doesn’t give automatic support to every endless war that comes down the pike. That said I trust the Coulter’s of the world to recognize when there is a real national interest involved that requires military force . . . something I don’t trust liberals to recognize.

[Servant of the Cross]

I wonder about the FReepers who like them both. The horns of a dilemma ....

[marron]

My view is you have to leave things in good order or you’re going to wish you had.

Right now your enemies are in Waziristan. If, in pulling out, those same enemies are able to take up residence in Kabul, they are going to interpret it as a victory for them and a defeat for you.

So, permanent war? No, of course not, but give some thought to what an acceptable outcome looks like and take the necessary steps to achieve it before a draw-down.

My view is that we won with a special-forces approach and we should draw down in an organized way returning to a special forces approach. But while special forces make a very small footprint on the ground, they are actually the point of a very large spear. But that would be my approach, I think. Build a gendarmerie that is capable of keeping the baddies up in the hills and away from the cities, and stiffen them with special forces advisors.

[Mere Survival]

I’m mad at Steele over this (he’s Repubican Chairman — my view is he should be scoring easy, popular points against Obama and raising funds hand over fist — not creating controversy). Ann Coulter’s whole career is based on creating controversy and I love her for it!

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I take it you’re not calling the author a liberal? (He isn’t.)

Not at all. I am simply saying it is a liberal’s dream.

But it’s a pipe dream nonetheless.

They were cheering on the pending ( their wish again ) split in the conservative movement when Coulter herself was removed from the National Review columnist list for her article on Islam after 9/11 ( Remember her “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” statement ?).

Guess what ? the GOP still retained Congress for another 5 years and Bush won re-election in 2004. As for Coulter, she went on to write best-seller after best-seller and is still the scourge of liberals everywhere.

[Mere Survival]

God protect your son.

[donna]

Nixon is the one who got us out of the mess Democrats made in Vietnam.

[skeeter]

Of course Steele was right. Anyone who disagrees with Steele that this is "Obama's war" is essentially absolving Obama of accountability in the war's conduct.

I'm unwilling to do that - I don't think the tactics which worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, and I think Obama's ROEs are suicidal to our guys.

Our rising casualities emphasize it.

[ken5050]

You wrote...."Gen. Petreus has the best chance at success in Afghanistan.."

Define success....see that's the problem..no one has..not Obama, nor Kristol, nor Coulter..

Consewrvatives should have opposed Obama's plan to add troops..and remember, he didn't give Petreus all the manpower requested, when Obama coupled it with an announced withdrawal date. That's when we should have srtood up and said NO..this makes no sense, strategically, tactically, any way you look at it..

[Mere Survival]

Heh. National Review shot themselves in the foot with that removal of Coulter didn’t they?

[ozzymandus]

Ann +1

Kristol is a self-proclaimed “intellectual” neo-con RINO without a real principle to his (inherited)name. If we’re not going to actually go all-out and win in Afganistan, and handcuff our troops with stupid rules of engagement, we might as well leave and let Afganistan remain the useless bandit-run wasteland it always was.

[campaignPete R-CT]

a curse on whatever gop presidential candidate in ‘12 signs up Kristol as a supporter.

or is the plan:
1. landslide against Obama to get back in power
2. let the same gop insider crowd destroy the gop again
3. prepare for the next marxist takeover
?

[jwalsh07]

It galled me every time I heard a leftist refer to “Bush’s War”. Bush wasn’t attacked America was so I line up with Liz Cheney, who I think is terrific, and Kristol who I think is less than terrific, on this one.

Of course we can always follow Pat Buchanan’s advice and retreat from the worl stage while we wait for the next attack. But I prefer to be on offense rather than defense.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

They ASS-U-ME that Krystal is a Conservative. Doubtful. He may not be a liberal, but neither is he a true conservative.

[editor-surveyor]

Kristol isn’t even slightly conservative, where’s the schism?
.

[writer33]

Schism my butt. It’s Conservative vs RINO

Agreed. Both must be conservative to have a schism.

[ZULU]

The “War” in Afghanistan is really an intense police action.

From where I sit, it appears that “winning” in Afghanistan means converting the miserable wretches who live there from 6th Century tribal theocrats who practice internecine killing because its the only trade they are half-way decent at, into liberal, progressive thinking modern republicans.

Only a brain like Bush II’s could conceive such idiocy and only an ego like Barack Obama’s could attempt to carry through it.

Our goal in Afghanistan SHOULD have been to destroy the Taliban government and political infrastructure, deliver a lesson in the dangers of attacking a modern military power like the U.S., and PULL OUT with as little loss of lives (OUR OWN LIVES) and money (OUR MONEY).

But to determined globalists like the Bushes and Obamas of the U.S., this is just too simple. To their minds these quasi-neolithic cretins squatting in their own filth and worshipping a gynophobic pedophile are just THIRSTING for the blessings of modern civilization and the Bushes and Obama are willing to spend the last dollar and the last life to achieve that.

American military policy should be based on Blitzkrieg type warfare - applying the most force as quickly, massively, and effectively as possible - to achieve a well-defined goal centered around our own best interests and those of the few reliable allies we have - and LEAVE - with minimal loss of American military lives and American dollars as possible.

Extended and protracted conflicts of occupation are neither in keeping with American interests nor American Character and counterproductive to maintaining a willingness to employ military power where needed in the future.

[writer33]

Yep:

The One Face Of The Weekly Standard

[G Larry]

America can’t afford to leave the Taliban and A.Q in power.
They must be defeated and Gen. Petreus has the best chance to achieve that.
Forget Obama!
This is what America must achieve or risk continued attack.

[MBB1984]

Or we can plunge deeper into wild deficit spending and expending valuable American lives on a war purposefully escalated by Obama with limited rules of engagement.

I think I will follow Pat and Ann's advice on this one.

[RachelFaith]

I have yet to find anything Ann has said to which I disagree.

[ken5050]

I agree it’s far better to fight them over there, than here...but heck, we could adopt Biden’s plan..stand off and keep killing them with UAVs....we can’t continue to feed troops into that palce for another decade...

[jwalsh07]

I think I will follow Pat and Ann's advice on this one.

We followed their advice for the two decades preceding 9/11/01. How'd that work out?

[MBB1984]

Maybe Pat’s, but certainly not Ann’s.

[frithguild]

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

[Sparky1776]

“I wonder about the FReepers who like them both. The horns of a dilemma ....”

What about us that have issues with both of them?

I disagree with Kristol on substance usually, Coulter on style occasionally.

[mjp]

There are conservative arguments to be made for -- or against -- continuing the war in Afghanistan,

It's the purpose of government to protect the natural rights of its citizens from external as well as from internal threats.

[G Larry]

That’s the point of relaxing he ROE.
Forget the arrests, kill the enemy.
If they continue to get killed “in the community”, they won’t be so popular at home.

[B Knotts]

We followed their advice for the two decades preceding 9/11/01.

We did? Then why were we in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, etc., etc.?

[SaxxonWoods]

Steele: His job performance is a 3 on a scale of 1-10. If he was white he would be gone by now. Useless in general.

Coulter: An entertainer who knows how to get attention. Happiest when Democrats are in power. Happens to be generally right on this question. Since her goal is sizzle rather than heavy policy, she is doing her business as usual. She’s fun but useless in general.

Kristol: Mainstream Republican pundit, has his moments good and bad. Useless in general, as he rarely convinces anyone of anything. Mainly interested in sounding thoughtful.

They are all useless in general, and this story is over after today.

[SharpRightTurn]

Go get ‘em, Ann.

[BarnacleCenturion]

This is not about Ann Coulter. As you can see on this very thread, most people side with her and Michael Steele in saying that we should leave Afghanistan. The schism is real.

[NeoCaveman]

Nixon is the one who got us out of the mess Democrats made in Vietnam.

And didn't Eisenhower get us out of Truman's Korean Conflict?

[ZULU]

I don;t think that justifies the cost in money and lives that we have expended trying to make a purse out of a sow’s ear there.

Trying to hold on to that area is an exercize in blood, cost and futility.

[Maelstorm]

I’m mad that he made what was an ambiguous statement that could easily be distorted.