Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Prominent Conservative Calls for Afghanistan Pullout

Conservative pundit George Will’s defection on the war in Afghanistan has outraged right-wing hawks and highlighted the growing public discontent with that conflict.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

A prominent right-wing political pundit has called for the United States to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, the latest sign of growing public disenchantment with the war.

Hawkish commentators have already assailed George F. Will for his September 1 Washington Post column headlined “Time for the U.S. to Get Out of Afghanistan.”

While a growing number of analysts have recently questioned the course of the war , Will’s column is especially notable in that it comes from a pillar of Washington’s right-wing media establishment —making his call for a withdrawal much more difficult to dismiss than liberal anti-war pronouncements.

Support for the war among the U.S. public at large has also plummeted in recent months, with 51 percent of respondents believing the war is not worth fighting, according to an August Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Will’s call for a U.S. pullout comes as the Barack Obama administration appears to be leaning toward a further escalation of the war effort.

On August 31, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, submitted a classified assessment of the war calling for a new strategy on the ground, according to several media reports. McChrystal’s report is widely seen as setting the stage for a further troop increase to supplement the 68,000 U.S. forces already in Afghanistan.

Will, on the other hand, called for the U nited S tates to “rapidly revers[e] the trajectory of America’s involvement in Afghanistan” by substantially reducing force levels.

In place of an intensive nation-building effort that he labeled “impossible,” Will proposed an alternate strategy: “America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units” to attack Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

He cited estimates that the Afghan government controls only a third of its country’s territory, and mocked efforts to eradicate Afghanistan’s opium trade as “Operation Sisyphus,” after the figure from Greek mythology eternally condemned to a futile effort to push a boulder up a hill.

Predictably, Will’s call for withdrawal provoked immediate and fierce attacks from neo conservatives and other right-wing hawks.

“It is a column that could have been written in Japanese aboard the USS Missouri,” wrote former George W. Bush administration official Peter Wehner on the website of Commentary magazine , referring to the Japanese surrender that ended World War II.

Wehner called Will a “defeatist” who “sound[s] more like Michael Moore than Henry Kissinger.”

William Kristol, the neo conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, accused Will of “urging retreat, and accepting defeat.”

And Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who is a leading proponent of a “surge” of U.S. troops into Afghanistan, called Will’s column “reprehensible.”

To be sure, Will’s is far from the only prominent voice questioning the wisdom of an escalated and open-ended nation-building effort in Afghanistan.

In an August 28 Wall Street Journal op-ed, for instance, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) called on Obama to set a timeline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

But hawks have sought to portray all war s keptics , like Feingold, as liberal and dovish. Opposition to the war, its supporters argue, is almost exclusively a left-wing phenomenon that is opposed by both the cent er and the right.

“Conservatives support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan,” Kristol wrote last month in the Weekly Standard . “As for today’s liberals: They just don’t want America to win wars, do they? They’re ready, willing, and able to see America lose in Afghanistan.”

Will’s turn against the war, coming on the heels of recent polls indicating that a majority of U.S. citizens oppose it, is a reminder that discontent over Afghanistan is not restricted to the left.

In fact, Will’s narrower conception of the U.S. national interest and his s kepticism about ambitious nation-building efforts has traditionally been more prevalent on the right than the left, at least until the 9/11 attacks.

Then-presidential candidate George W. Bush famously attacked opponent Al Gore in the 2000 presidential debates for “using our troops as nation-builders.”

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, these strands of conservative foreign policy doctrine were marginali zed, as neo conservatism —an unabashedly interventionist tendency calling for the U.S. to exercise “benevolent global hegemony” —became ascendant on the right.

But the Iraq war —which the Bush administration ultimately came to justify as an exercise in democracy promotion —undoubtedly did much to sour both the public and the foreign policy establishment on armed nation-building efforts.

Will, who initially supported the Iraq war, called it “perhaps the worst foreign policy debacle in the nation’s history.”

And while there are few signs that neo conservatism is close to being unseated as the dominant foreign policy doctrine within the Republican Party, an increasing number of conservatives have come forward to question the war in Afghanistan.

Harvard University professor Rory Stewart, who recently announced plans to run for Parliament in the U.K. on the Conservative Party ticket, published a widely discussed July article in the London Review of Books that expressed deep skepticism about the entire war effort and called nation-building efforts in Afghanistan “impossible.”

Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass, who served in both Bush administrations , recently suggested in the New York Times that Afghanistan is a “war of choice” rather than a war of necessity.

Haass suggested that the Obama administration consider alternate policies up to and including full withdrawal from Afghanistan, although he stopped short of endorsing them outright.

Obama now faces a series of difficult decisions —faced on the one hand by hawks calling for more troops and more resources, and on the other hand by declining support for the war among the public at large.

The Aug ust 20 Afghan presidential elections, which were marred by widespread allegations of fraud, have done nothing to increase public confidence.

Incumbent President Hamid Karzai has led in the preliminary vote counts released so far, although not by enough to avoid a runoff with challenger Abdullah Abdullah.

Still, few in Washington have high expectations for either candidate’s ability to govern or to serve as an effective partner in the fight against the Taliban.

Top U.S. officials have called on skeptics to give McChrystal 12 to 18 months to implement his new strategy and demonstrate progress.

But as the controversy over Will’s column indicates, there appears to be little patience for a costly and extended war effort. In Washington, the political clock is ticking.

Daniel Luban writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share