Oh, yeah, THAT war...

Posted at 3:21 PM on September 11, 2006 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)

I've been watching and reading a lot of September 11th stuff in the last few days. I have to admit I consume September 11 material like crazy. If there's a documentary on -- emphasis on the factual part -- I watch it. And no, I didn't watch the ABC thing. But I didn't go see Farenheit 911 either.

As the day winds down, I'm actually struck -- dumbstruck I guess you could say -- that nobody in political circles seems to be talking about that other war -- Afghanistan.

Iraq, we talk about. Iran, we talk about. Afghanistan, we don't talk about, which is curious since it appears the Taliban is regrouping there.

There's a little less than a couple of months left to talk about it. Anybody?

---

Comments (7)

If there's a documentary on -- emphasis on the factual part -- I watch it. And no, I didn't watch the ABC thing. But I didn't go see Farenheit 911 either.

Is it too much to ask that this site be hosted by someone whose idea of balance isnt't to offhandedly trash liberals while he sucks up to conservatives?

Posted by k | September 11, 2006 10:39 PM

---

You have no idea -- no idea at all -- how warm and fuzzy your point makes me feel. It more than offsets my disappointment that you didn't have the courage to reveal your name.

But nothing to say about the issue? Nothing at all?

So does that mean now that on Planet Politics now, one's position on actual issues is no longer the fact in establishing their credentials, but whether one even brings up an issue in the first place?

What? You want to whisper about the fact we've got a war going on in Afghanistan?

Sad.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 12, 2006 7:53 AM

---

It is a curious thing, isn't it. (Though, to touch on another point you've made here, conservative blogs, including my other one, Security Watchtower, regularly follow the news out of Afghanistan.)

I don't know what the reason is exactly. Perhaps for the right the war in Afghanistan has grown so familiar that they assume it's just a police action there now.

The left must be conflicted. For them, it's the only good war. Terrorism is there and only there, so since it was the home of Al Qaeda, they grudgingly agree that we should do something there. On the other hand, the ongoing trouble is a reminder that terrorism is still active there, and elsewhere, so the left is torn between advocating for increased action in Afghanistan (not popular with the left), or advocating we get out of Afghanistan (and thereby leave themselves to the weak on national security charge.) Not a good choice. So, the left tries to ignore it.

You're right, the Taliban have been more active this year, but they are also getting pasted. They've taken casualties in the hundreds in the last few months. And today, there is news Hekmatyar was captured. He's a very bad man, and this is tremendous news.

Posted by Jeff | September 12, 2006 9:11 AM

---

Jeff, I don't speak for the left, but I can't help but notice that you've completely misrepresented my position as a person who supported the action in Afghanistan but have been against the Iraq war since day one. I don't recall large numbers of people 'grudgingly' agreeing to do something in Afghanistan. As I recall, in the Autumn of 2001, the US citizenry were pretty united in the goals of finding & bringing to justice the people who attacked us & removing the regime that harbored them in Afghanistan.

I'd say we don't hear about Afghanistan primarily because Iraq came along. The Iraq war is much larger, more complicated and more controversial than Afghanistan, therefore the focus is on Iraq, not Afghanistan. Also, most of the burden of securing Afghanistan is now on NATO, not US troops.

Posted by bsimon | September 12, 2006 10:11 AM

---

Jeff, I don't think that you can generalize "the left" in that way, nor put thoughts in the head of your overarching grouping.

In addition, Bob is right about absolutely nobody being interested in talking about Afghanistan--congress, the Bush administration, the military, the news media--nobody. Why? I don't know. My best guess is that there was so much less controversy about going into Afghanistan that the media isn't interested in covering it. There aren't two easy sides to play he-said/she-said with it, because basically everyone agreed that we should be there. My only other guess is that Afghanistan reminds people too much of Osama bin-Laden, and our failure to capture him.

Posted by MR | September 12, 2006 10:13 AM

---

True enough, generalizations are usually just that.

But, MR and bsimon, I'm curious as to *why* exactly you think the US should be in Afghanistan.

Presumably you think the US should not be anywhere else?

Do you think Afghanistan is the sole font from which terrorism bubbles forth?

Do you discount Iran's support for terrorism?

Do the terror attacks in London, Madrid, Indonesia, nearly Germany, etc... all stem from Afghanistan?

I don't happen to think so, which is why I think this war needs to be fought on a variety of fronts.

Posted by Jeff | September 12, 2006 12:25 PM

---

Jeff, neither do the terror attacks in London, Madrid, Indonesia, India, nearly Germany, nearly Denmark, nearly Australia, etc. stem from Iraq. Your question is a red herring.

Regarding where we should be, you presume incorrectly. I think the US military should be at their bases home & abroad. I think the national guard & reserves should be at home, living their civilian lives. The people that we should be sending out to 'fight' should be in charge of intelligence gathering and winning over the hearts & minds of people before they either become or begin to support terrorists. In my opinion, which you have have seen me post at other blogs, is that you cannot defeat an ideology with a military. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah garner support by providing basic services to people. They build sympathy and a reputation for solving problems at a local level, and people look the other way when they smuggle, build and fire their weapons. And we, and our allies in Israel, try to fight them with bombs that end up causing obscene amounts of collateral damage. Why are we so surprised that Joe Arab/Muslim on the streets supports the guys that help rebuild their houses rather than the ones that blow them up? A military-based 'war' on terror is the exact wrong way to confront the problem.

Posted by bsimon | September 12, 2006 4:27 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

Email Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor