Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Michael Steele Sees the Light ... for a Moment

Better late than never, but the GOP chairman has got much closer to the truth than most of his colleagues, at least briefly:
Well if [Obama is] such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops.
Then the uproar followed, with lead necon Bill Kristol calling for Steele's resignation because he had dissed the troops. (That escaped me.)

So Steele issued -- ahem -- a clarification:
[F]or the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war.

As we have learned throughout history, winning a war in Afghanistan is a difficult task. We must also remember that after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, it is also a necessary one. That is why I supported the decision to increase our troop force and, like the entire United States Senate, I support General Petraeus' confirmation. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan.

RNC spokesman Doug Heye further clarified that "nowhere did Steele say or suggest that (a) we shouldn't be there, (b) we can't win or (c) he didn't support the surge."

I think Steele is saying that you should never fight a war in Afghanistan because you'll never win it. But should you find yourself in one anyway, you should win it.

I'll leave this to smarter people to sort out.

6 comments:

Anthony said...

The unspoken rule from the president down to the military grunt is that if you can't say something nice [about the military], don't say anything at all. All other arguments stem from that platitude.

Emily said...

Ridiculous! The only time politician's say anything even semi-respectable or accurate, they revoke it as soon as anybody has a problem with it!

Matt Flick said...

RNC spokesman Doug Heye further clarified that "nowhere did Steele say or suggest that (a) we shouldn't be there, (b) we can't win or (c) he didn't support the surge."
Did Steele suggest we shouldn't be there, not technically. He only implied that foot soldiers should be the focus. That we can't win, well no country in the world throughout history ever dropped an atomic bomb on civilians, that didn't stop us. As to not supporting the surge. "There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops." That one is a pretty solid suggestion. What do they do to twist the arms of politicians to get them to flip flop like that?

Anthony said...

I can think of one non-surge approach would have far better results: shoot the mothers. Understand, I don't think the US Military is that evil. It's evil, but not that evil. And I think the best approach is to leave. But if you're not going to leave and you want a method that works, shoot the mothers.

Sheldon Richman said...

Anthony, I hope you're kidding.

Anthony said...

@Sheldon, what do you mean?