This would be great news, of course, and I hope it is true. But the timing of this sudden burst of optimism about our troops’ increased ability to suppress bin Laden’s fanatics is just too convenient for those urging the president to reject General McChyrstal’s recommendations concerning more troops for the Afghan theater.
If al Qaeda is truly on its back and unable to regroup, then the case for abandoning Afghanistan to the Taliban gets easier for the president to make. If, on the other hand and as almost everyone prior to today has stated, the return of the Taliban to power in Kabul or even to unmolested authority in other areas of the country will increase the ability of al Qaeda to organize and launch attacks against the U.S., then the McChyrstal recommendations should be adopted and quickly.
We know the president has embraced appeasement in all but name vis-a-vis Iran and its nuclear ambitions. The New York Times’ John Burns worries that the U.S. policy in Iraq is leading to growing instability there, which is another example of the roll out of an appeasement policy towards any force hostile to the U.S. And now today’s WaPo story suggests others are pushing the president towards a three-front appeasement policy, which would mean the gradual abandonment of the battle for Afghanistan in addition to withdrawal from Iraq and surrender to Iran’s ambitions. Make that a four-front appeasement policy, given the president’s abandonment of missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic in an attempt to please Vladimir Putin.
Back to the ’90s’ “holiday from history,” which of course led to 9/11.