How Bill Kristol Closed the Conservative Mind

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE ^ | 12/18/2018 | Jack Hunter

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I think where people may disagree is how the aftermath should have been handled."

The problem in Afghanistan is that if we leave, the fledgling government will most likely fall to the Taliban and become another corrupt, lawless society. They are willing to wait us out. The exit strategy there is to get this government to stand up on it's own so that it doesn't fall to the Taliban and lawlessness/statelessness. That part has been screwed up at times for sure.

Our forces there now for the most part stay on their bases (a large majority at Bagram) with forces mostly going out to kill Al Qada or high value Talibans. The vast majority of the fighting right now is being conducted by the Afghans. People ask well how long will it take until we are out of there? I don't know exactly but people harp on this and yet we have been in South Korea for 70 years almost protecting them. Yes, we have had soldiers die over the years in South Korea.

I agree, no nation building anymore. We need to concentrate on what our objectives are and work with our Afghani partners to achieve it. We've given them their freedom, hopefully these latest talks with the Taliban will bear fruit.

[Alberta's Child]

I would agree with you on most of that, but it’s not really relevant because it’s never going to happen. I don’t think anyone in Washington other than Ann Coulter has any interest in the “policy” you are proposing there.

[x]

Red herring indeed. You use the comic examples I offered to avoid defending your absurd claim.

The US does not have the most restrained foreign policy in the world. We may come close to having one of the least.

And what I mean with respect to Kristol is that he was typically not critical of having the rules of engagement that restrained US forces from absolute victory remain in place.

Rules of engagement restrain us from foolish or ill-conceived interventions.

A search of the Standard's website reveals editorials and articles critical of "restrictive" or "smothering" rules of engagement.

From what you've written it looks like you are more of an interventionist than even William Kristol. That is rather rare around here, I think.

[ek_hornbeck]

I knew George W. Bush would be bad news when he ran as a "compassionate conservative," but it took me a couple of years to realize just how bad he was going to be. From his coddling of Islam as a "religion of peace" after the 9/11 attacks, his expansion of the welfare state, his refusal to restrict mass immigration in any way shape or form (including immigration from countries that were terrorist factories), his idiotic "nation building" projects in the Middle East and Africa, the man was a non-stop source of disappointments.

The fact that he ended his time in office by working with Barney Frank to bail out bankrupt speculators with taxpayer dollars was a fitting end to an abject Presidency. It's equally fitting that he hardly had a single bad word to say about Obama from 2008-2012, but has since rarely missed a chance to speak up for illegal immigrants while attacking Trump and his supporters.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know exactly but people harp on this and yet we have been in South Korea for 70 years almost protecting them.

Kia Motors has an R&D/design facility in California and builds cars in Georgia. Hyundai Motor Company also has an R&D/design facility in California and builds cars in Alabama.

You can buy a Samsung smart phone if you want. I have an LG monitor here on my desk (Life is Good!).

Let me know when a company named Taliban Technologies or Mohammed al-Faruk Industries is going to be producing anything of value for the human race anytime soon ... and by "soon" I mean within the next 500 years.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Let me know when a company named Taliban Technologies or Mohammed al-Faruk Industries is going to be producing anything of value for the human race anytime soon ... and by "soon" I mean within the next 500 years"

How many of those South Korean companies you mention were household names in America in 1967? That would be 17 years after we first went into South Korea.

I never said that Afghanistan would be the 'Tiger of the Middle East' as South Korea was once termed the Tiger of Asia. What I do intend to say is that Afghanistan can be a stable country that stands on it's own and will not allow Islamo Fascists a home to plot and plan against America. I don't care if their economy ends up being an export giant. That is their business.

[Olog-hai]

OK; you’re actually defending the rules of engagement that have hobbled our armed forces basically ever since WWII, put in place by our left-wing leaders for the purpose of weakening the USA. Never mind conflating all military operations with so-called intervention.

Have a nice day.

[ek_hornbeck]

I think that the point isn’t so much that Korea and Japan became economic powerhouses following US occupation, but that Japanese and Korean people are capable of civilized behavior. I haven’t seen any evidence that the tribal societies of the Middle East with their Bronze-age religious fanaticism are remotely capable of the same.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I haven’t seen any evidence that the tribal societies of the Middle East with their Bronze-age religious fanaticism are remotely capable of the same."

Yes, they are a tribal society with the pashtuns the most dominant ethnic group. No, I don't see Jeffersonian Liberal Democracy breaking out in Afghanistan anytime soon. However, I disagree that they can't have a stable nation state that can stand up on it's own. When I used Korea as a comparison previously it had nothing to do with the comparison of their societies. It had everything to do with our commitment to them to re-build their society after a devastating war because it was in our national interests to see them not fall into communism. That is what we should focus on with Afghanistan. Help this fledgling nation state to be able to stand on it's own so it doesn't fall back into Islamo Fascists radicalism. The Afghans I have met and known want that also, not for America to rebuild their nation.

[Alberta's Child]

It doesn't matter if they were household names in America in 1967. If nothing else, most of them were prominent companies in Korea long before anyone ever heard of them here.

Kia Motors was established in 1944. Hyundai's parent company was founded in 1947, and was established as an auto manufacturing company in 1967. Samsung was founded in 1938. LG Electronics began as GoldStar in 1958.

In other words ... three of those four companies existed even before the Korean War.

... Afghanistan can be a stable country that stands on it's own ...

Get real. The place is an 'effing dump, and will probably be a dump for hundreds of years. How many Islamic countries around the world are "stable" by any measure?

[Alberta's Child]

Think of the elements of the U.S. government that make this country so stable since its founding. I'll name three right off the bat:

1. The Bill of Rights

2. A bicameral legislature

3. No official state religion

Did you ever wonder why -- when the United States has gone around with its delusion idea of nation-building and "spreading democracy" around the world over the years -- the governments we establish never adopt these things?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"How many Islamic countries around the world are "stable" by any measure?"

Seriously? Ok, I'll give you a few. United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia... I could go on.

"Get real. The place is an 'effing dump, and will probably be a dump for hundreds of years."

Have you ever been there or ever studied it's history? I will just say we will have to agree to disagree on this one...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Think of the elements of the U.S. government that make this country so stable since its founding. I'll name three right off the bat:"

As I said in another post, I don't expect nor do I see Afghanistan breaking out in Liberal Jeffersonian Democracy. Stable in the eyes of our national interests should be a country that can be a functioning society that is no threat to us. I am no Bill Kristol neocon. Each country has to decide for itself what it's future is as far as society and government. As long as they are functioning and no threat to us, why should we care what kind of government a nation/state chooses for its form of government. If they want to be an ally of ours, then there is a larger hurdle they have to clear for that. A close ally even larger hurdles still. That is for them to decide.

[Alberta's Child]

Most of those countries are basically U.S. protectorates -- including one like Jordan that only exists because of massive USAID investment.

Have you ever been there or ever studied it's history? I will just say we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

We'll certainly have to disagree on this one. I wouldn't travel to Afghanistan at gunpoint. LOL.

[Alberta's Child]

If they want to be an ally of ours, then there is a larger hurdle they have to clear for that. A close ally even larger hurdles still. That is for them to decide.

If they are not going to be an ally of ours, then there is no reason for the U.S. to be there. Lay waste to the place and leave ... or leave it alone, period.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Most of those countries are basically U.S. protectorates -- including one like Jordan that only exists because of massive USAID investment."

You asked me to identify Muslim countries that are stable. When I do you dismiss it with the above statement? I doubt we are giving aid to Kuwait, UAE or Indonesia. You just created a red herring fallacy in this statement for sure.

"If they are not going to be an ally of ours, then there is no reason for the U.S. to be there."

Well, they are now obviously. I was more referring in general to countries you talked about us 'establishing'. By establishing, I assume you meant helped out which is rather a substantial amount of countries. There are degrees of us being allied with countries. Ultimately, as long as a country is actively not plotting against our demise or looking to kill our people, they may not necessarily be a close ally, but they are fine as far as our National Interests are concerned.

[bmwcyle]

Are you stupid or just under a rock? Look past your nose or Fox News. Go out and fucking look.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Are you stupid or just under a rock? Look past your nose or Fox News. Go out and fucking look."

Wow, thanks for that thoughtful and well reasoned reply to my arguments in this thread. You have added so much to this conversation.

[x]

OK; you’re actually defending the rules of engagement that have hobbled our armed forces basically ever since WWII, put in place by our left-wing leaders for the purpose of weakening the USA. Never mind conflating all military operations with so-called intervention.

And you're confusing foreign policy with military policy. The article made reference to a reckless foreign policy, not to military rules of engagement. It's possible to have a very reckless foreign policy and restrained military rules of engagement and vice versa.

And what I mean with respect to Kristol is that he was typically not critical of having the rules of engagement that restrained US forces from absolute victory remain in place.

We won "absolute victory" over Saddam Hussein.

We broke his state and pulled him out of his hiding hole and put him to death.

But years later we were still fighting in Iraq.

That convinced many people that we weren't omnipotent and couldn't force other countries to transform themselves.

But apparently it didn't convince everybody.

The idea that if we could just bring more force to bear we could have achieved the transformation Bush, Cheney, and Kristol wanted for the Middle East is a dangerous illusion.

Have a nice day.

Likewise. Say "Hi" to Bill Kristol for me.

[Olog-hai]

Actually, the Dems insisted on accepting help from Iran when it came to Iraq, and of course those “democratic elections” that guaranteed the pro-Iranian Shi’ites taking power in the region, giving Iran a land bridge to the Mediterranean. Here, foreign policy and military policy coincided to the USA’s detriment.

Remember Obama’s opposition to the military surge (his being proven wrong on its effectiveness embarrassed him to no end), and his hurried exit from Iraq? Conflation of foreign and military policy once again; what with the POTUS being CIC, such a thing becomes unavoidable.