George Will: “Time for the U.S. to Get Out of Afghanistan”

Conservative arch-pundit George Will will use his column in tomorrow’s Washington Post to urge President Obama to get our troops out of Afghanistan:

…forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now…

When George Will and Senator Russ Feingold agree on something, you better listen to them.

Finding Our Footing Again

The New York Times over the weekend reported that the anti-war movement is gearing up to challenge President Obama on Afghanistan:

A restive antiwar movement, largely dormant since the election of Barack Obama, is preparing a nationwide campaign this fall to challenge the administration’s policies on Afghanistan.

This is the best news I’ve read in months, and it couldn’t come at a better time. General McChrystal just submitted his strategic review to the Defense Department, and he’s expected to ask for as many as 20,000 more troops. That’s a recipe for increased casualties (both civilian and military), continued waste of national wealth and damage to our national security. These are just some of the effects of the war in Afghanistan documented in Rethink Afghanistan, which, by the way, the New York Times mentioned in their piece:

“Rethink Afghanistan,” …is being produced and released in segments by the political documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald. In six episodes so far, Mr. Greenwald has used interviews with academics, Afghans and former C.I.A. operatives to raise questions about civilian casualties, women’s rights, the cost of war and whether it has made the United States safer.

The episodes, some as short as two minutes, are circulated via Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and blogs. Antiwar groups are also screening them with members of Congress.

I do have one quibble with the NYT’s characterization of the movement, however. Many of the groups mentioned have been consistent in their opposition to war, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican sat in the White House. While it’s true that many have been reluctant to publicly oppose President Obama, others have stood on street corners, badgered their representatives, held screenings of Rethink Afghanistan in their local communities, and worked against a massive public desire to sink into obliviousness now that George W. Bush is back in Texas. As Robert put it in the NYT piece, it’s been “lonely out there,” and the folks who’ve been out there from the beginning deserve a pat on the back for helping to swing public opinion against this war.

That’s not to say that there aren’t people working to kill the energy of the nascent movement to end the war in Afghanistan. Even some who were with us on Iraq are trying to stop the turning of the tide:

“People do not want to take on the administration,” said Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets.org. “Generating the kind of money that would be required to challenge the president’s policies just isn’t going to happen.”

…Others, like VoteVets.org, support the American military presence in Afghanistan, calling it crucial to fighting terrorism.

Hide and watch, Mr. Soltz.