Even though we live in a democracy in which the people are supposed to rule, the Pentagon refuses to release the contents of a much-publicized surveyabout openly gay military service. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pentagon spokesmen Geoff Morrell, and at least one gay activist group all admit that the survey is designed to facilitate open [...]
At Pat Buchanan’s urging, Michael Steele had flirted with the idea of running as the anti-war candidate in 2012. But after seeing the negative reaction to this idea from conservative primary voters and Republican Party officials, Steele has backtracked. He now says that he supports the war in Afghanistan, and that our troops can win there.
The Pentagon is surveying military personnel about their attitudes toward open homosexuality within the ranks. But let’s be honest: this survey is a complete waste of time: because as we all know, no one in the Pentagon really cares what our military personnel think about this issue. The Pentagon hierarchy, after all, is determined to force open homosexuality on our troops regardless of what their survey does or does not show. The survey, moreover, is diversion from the real problem, which is not the attitude of our troops, but rather the introduction of an overt sexual dynamic into an overwhelmingly young and health male population.
Pat Buchanan’s attempt to defend Republican National Committee Chairman (RNC) Michael Steele on free-speech ground fails. Miserably. What Buchanan fails to appreciate is that Steele isn’t speaking only for himself; he is speaking on behalf of the entire Republican Party. And Steele has no right to impose his anti-war beliefs on a party that mostly disagrees with him on this key issue. Steele should resign and, if he feels this strongly about the issue, run as an insurgent anti-war candidate in 2012. Pat Buchanan can help him. Buchanan, after all, ran as an anti-war/anti-defense candidate in 1992 and 1996.
The Left’s misreading of the nation’s founding documents accounts for considerable political mischief. Historian Newt Gingrich has identified one such misreading, of the Declaration of Independence, while showing how this misreading leads to the forced secularization of America. Newt is right, but the Left’s misreading of the Declaration also leads to the concentration of economic power in Washington. Thus, if conservatives want to stop the leftist onslaught, they best focus on the nation’s educational system: to ensure that future generations are taught the true basis of our government.
Some prominent conservatives — including, for instance, the esteemed Ann Coulter — doubt that American can win in Afghanistan. But in truth, it’s not. Winning in Afghanistan actually has a very precise (albeit nontraditional) meaning. It means establishing a functioning government — or governing bodies — that can do the bare minimum: quell insurgents and insurrections within its borders, deter and repel invaders, provide basic services, police the streets, and patrol the neighborhoods. That’s it. The model is Tajikistan, not Disneyland.
Like many conservatives, David Forsmark is tempted by the siren song of a counterterrorism policy in Afghanistan. There’s only one problem: such a policy won’t work. It’s like trying to kill cockroaches with bombs: The bombs explode, but the cockroaches proliferate. So, too, with Afghanistan. U.S. Special Forces can kill all of the bad guys they want; but this will do little to nothing by itself to stop the spread of terrorist networks in Afghanistan. Thus, our only hope there is to wage a classic — and necessarily long-term — counterinsurgency campaign.
Ralph Peters is at it again: Taking cheap, nasty and gratuitous shots at General David Petraeus and his counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. But Peters’ preferred counterterrorism policy is a surefire loser, as it would consign Afghanistan — and America — to decades of endless warfare. Waging a counterinsurgency is difficult and challenging, absolutely. However, it is the only way the United States can win in Afghanistan.
General David Petraeus is a great military leader and also a very capable politician. However, it is unreasonable and counterproductive to hold all of our military leaders to the Petraeus standard. We should expect our generals to be great warriors, not politicians. Otherwise we will end up discarding some truly great military talent that we need to win our nation’s wars.