Neocon warmonger Charles Krauthammer is up in arms, furiously attacking President Obama’s sincerity in conducting the war in Afghanistan. Krauthammer starts by quoting the just released book from former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates:
By early 2011, writes former defense secretary Robert Gates, he had concluded that President Obama ‘doesn’t believe in his own [Afghanistan] strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his.’
Of course, Krauthammer was not surprised by Gates’ revelation and Obama’s supposed weakness.:
The odd thing about Gates’s insider revelation of Obama’s lack of faith in his own policy is that we knew it all along. Obama was emitting discordant notes from the very beginning. In the West Point ‘surge’ speech itself, the very sentence after that announcement consisted of the further announcement that the additional troops would be withdrawn in 18 months.
How can any commander be so precise so far in advance about an enterprise as inherently contingent and unpredictable?
How could Obama “be so precise”? How could he make statements in regards to a situation that was so “inherently contingent and unpredictable”? It’s funny that Krauthammer, of all people, should ask such questions.
Prior to the Iraq war, it was Krauthammer himself who made statements that deserve the same type of scrutiny:
April 19, 2002
…Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us.
October 7, 2002
Hawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists.
How could Krauthammer “be so precise”? How could he champion “bringing democracy” to Iraq through “regime change”? How could he make such claims in a situation that is so “inherently contingent and unpredictable”?
Was it “insincerity” or “lack of belief” that was the problem? Were those lacking? Is that why Iraq turned into a complete disaster?
No it was not.
Krauthammer said so himself on November 15, 2002:
President Bush remains apparently sincere in his determination to rid the world of Hussein and his weapons.
One must then ask: Is a lying and “sincere” George W. Bush better than a lying and “insincere” Barack Obama?
It makes no difference. Both lead to disaster.
The problem is the foreign policy itself and the ideas that drive it. The US government cannot remake societies — here or overseas. It does not have the ability to rearrange different cultures and make them bend to US will. The US is also running out of funds, and is bleeding the US economy dry in its attempts to achieve these impossible goals. The sincerity of the President cannot change these facts.
It’s best to change foreign policy now. According to recent polls most Americans agree with us. It must be changed to a policy that our Founders laid forth: one of peace, trade and friendship with all nations. Whether now or later — when the money completely runs out — the policy will have to change. How about now? Tuning out Krauthammer completely is a good start.