Isolationists also must take the blame for the Afghanistan catastrophe.

It’s not just Biden and Trump who should wear that jacket.

The Taliban have taken over Afghanistan, except in the Panjshir Valley, were resisters in the Northern Alliance have killed 350 Taliban fighters and taken 40 hostage .

As America hightails it out of Afghanistan, we’ve lost a crucial outpost that helps protect our national interest.

In the pre-bug out, we had a few thousand American military specialists and contractors–mostly non-combatants–who were our eyes and ears in this outpost. Gathering intelligence. Spotting where attacks against America or our interests were being hatched. Giving air support to the Afghans who were fighting and dying for their country. Aviation maintenance crews. Maintaining a launch pad for covert operations in the region against terrorists.

Not the least, providing safe harbor for our citizens, friends and allies who were there to help the Afghan people–especially the young ones who never had the joy of living under the thumb of the Taliban–from being overrun by adherents of a 7th century set of rules. Of course, that doesn’t matter.

Not a single American GI was killed performing these essential services for more than a year. It wasn’t an attempt to “nation build,” “create a democracy” or any of the other simpleminded slogans repeated by isolationists who blindly insist that America going turtle is the best and only way to keep us safe. No one can get to us inside our shell, right?

Both Trump and Biden fed this childish, naive isolationism whose roots run deep in America. Often with bad consequences. Remember Pearl Harbor. “Twenty years is enough!” “No more endless wars!”

Trump set it all in motion with a flawed “agreement” that signaled to Afghans that a massive betrayal is on the way. They didn’t need to hear the cock crow thrice to know that their fate was sealed. Biden, for all is blather and self-righteousness, followed up Trump by bowing before extreme isolationism. Where are Trumans, FDRs and Churchills when we need them?

Never mind that the recent deployment of limited American resources was far different from the huge military deployments of past years. The 100,000 troops on the ground. The lives lost. The treasure spent. However we got into what many consider to be an indefensible war, current circumstances and realities should dictate policy.

This kind of analysis hardly suits the isolationists who attack the “neocons” and “interventionists” with broad strokes, in obeisance to their America-in-hiding ideology. The “interventionists” can be accused of the same submission to an ideology. Both sides go the either/or, good/bad, black/white route, failing to see the vast middle ground between the two. That would be a middle ground that is guided by reality. One that weighs the costs and the benefits.

It’s a measure of how far we’ve sunk that we allow slogans to dictate life and death policies.

Ye gods. I don’t want to hear any diversionary “it was a masterful evacuation” to cover up Biden’s and Trump’s huge strategic error. We should never have given up what we had there. Now we pay the price:

Americans and allies left behind. Infidels kneeling to pledge allegiance to 7th century concepts of justice and religion. Beheadings and hangings for dissidents. Women and girls–my God, what have we done to them? A platform for jihadists to launch their terror not just against us.

It’s a measure of how far we’ve sunk that we allow slogans to dictate life and death policies.

The reality is that America is the world’s beacon of freedom, the place of refuge, safety and prosperity. We are admired, I dare say, more than hated. At least outside of America. In America, we are rotting from the inside by hate-America wokishness.

Differing views:

Type your email address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: isolationism

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Isolationists? After almost 20 years of being there? No nation building? What were all the contractors doing then? Get a hold of the account by Washington Post journalists of the wholesale, widespread corruption that was rampart during our aborted attempt to build a nation that President Biden courageously ended.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    You missed my point--again. No matter how we got there, whether justified or not, I'm looking at the present. Our presence was minimal yet justifiable in our national interest. Pulling out like we did, or even it wasn't "brilliant," our policy was dictated by blind ideology and politics, rather than realism. We weren't there now to "nation build," but dragging out that irrelevant bromide doesn't surprise me.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    You say, "I'm looking at the present," when you are actually fantasizing about the past, supplied with "intelligence" from right wing commentators who are themselves armchair generals.

  • I was totally against keeping troops there any longer than it took to break up the terrorist camps. No, to nation building. However, an objective look at the current situation shows that we had under 3000 troops there, no American killed for over 18 months, the country relatively stable, control via Bagram, and the Taliban at bay. Maybe the situation could have been maintained, as in S. Korea. Compared to what has happened, the Afghan army disappearing, Taliban vs ISIS, possible civil war, and the amount of war material in the hands of anti-Americans, maybe the withdrawal wasn't necessary at this time. Of course, politics and the military being untrustworthy makes it hard to know what course to follow.

  • In reply to Get out of IL now!:

    My keepers know what to do: follow the ideology no matter what the reality has become.

  • In reply to Get out of IL now!:

    The Taliban was not at bay. Pick up a copy of National Geographic and read its article on Afghanistan. It will tell you how untenable and pointless was our presence there.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    To use the kind of an argument that you frequently employ, the National Geographic has turned into a woke, green and far-left publication, albeit with great photography.I don't trust it any more than you trust Fox News. I don't need to read the NG to understand the corporate and legacy media's line. It's everywhere.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    What specifically is inaccurate about the National Geographic article I cite?
    To equate The National Geographic with Fox News is downright silly.
    E.G. there are no science skeptics among its contributors.

    I'm glad you like its photography though. What magazines do you read?

  • Barber here. I’m pretty experienced and a successful barber with my own place but I definitely made some mistakes along the way. This story still makes me die inside a little. When I was training, maybe a few months in so I had a bit of confidence, enough for me to not realis I still didn’t know what I was doing, i was cutting this guys hair and I got to his fringe.

    greatpeople me kroger

Leave a comment