http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0...l-kristol-beginnings-of-a-conservative-schis/ Ann Coulter vs. Bill Kristol: Beginnings of a Conservative Schism? Matt Lewis Columnist POSTED: 07/8/10 Ann Coulter's recent column "Bill Kristol Must Resign" may have officially kicked off the next great schism within the conservative movement. At issue is the war in Afghanistan -- and, more specifically, whether Republicans should support President Obama's approach to a conflict that has now lasted for Americans far longer than World War II. Mocking neoconservatives, Coulter wrote: "Bill Kristol [editor of The Weekly Standard] and Liz Cheney have demanded that [Michael] Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)" Coulter failed at convincing Kristol to resign -- she never says from what. In fact, channeling Michael Steele, who vows to stay on as party chief, Kristol responded: "I ain't going anywhere." But she may have succeeded at advancing a major debate. Until now, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule, adhered to by most on the right, that conservative Republicans would vigorously oppose Obama's liberal domestic policies while supporting his efforts to win in Afghanistan. After all, Republicans had staunchly backed George W. Bush when he made the case for fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Changing course now would seem craven -- playing politics with national security. And so, in foreign policy, Obama was criticized from the right only when he appeared to be showing weakness, not when he displayed toughness. But recent comments from Steele have sparked a debate that was probably long overdue. Notwithstanding the fact that Steele almost immediately backtracked, some conservatives began defending the substance of Steele's comments. "Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right," Coulter wrote. "Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well." This is a serious point. As Politics Daily's own David Corn recently wrote: There was always skepticism on the left about Obama's decision to escalate the war -- perhaps even to waging war there in the first place. And if the commander in chief is losing any significant portion of the right when it comes to Afghanistan, his policies could be on perilous ground. One of the ideas advanced by Coulter is that Bush wisely kept a relatively small footprint in Afghanistan, while choosing instead to invade Iraq -- terrain more hospitable for a traditional ground war. There is some revisionism at work here, and it must be said that prominent voices, like Liz Cheney's (not to mention Gen. David Petraeus'), were raised in support of the surge in Afghanistan. Still, it's fair to broach the question raised by Steele and Coulter: Would Bush be doing anything differently today in terms of Afghanistan? Or is Coulter's position a less high-minded one? After a decade of defending Bush's actions, and getting beat up for it, are Republicans now saying it's time for a Democratic president to get the Bush treatment? Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire. George Will and Tony Blankley have raised that very point. But Coulter has made it in a way that directly -- and personally -- challenges conservative orthodoxy. And it's catching on. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tweeted Coulter's column out to his followers, adding, "Thank you, Ann Coulter. She speaks out against the GOP now being for permanent war. She is right." And if conservatives are asked to choose sides between, say, the elected leader of the Republican National Committee (Steele) and the titular head of the Democratic National Committee (Obama), how many will decide that Obama's Afghanistan policies are not worth the trouble? Maybe it was unavoidable, but it does seem as if Coulter's comments today hearken back to the 1990s -- when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office -- and conservatives criticized his efforts in places like Bosnia and Kosovo as "nation building." Clearly, things have changed since 2008, when candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney represented the mainstream viewpoint, and when Congressman Ron Paul was essentially mocked for his isolationist tendencies and his desire for a "humble foreign policy." Today, Paul's positions are enjoying resurgence, and his son, Rand Paul, is poised to be elected to the U.S. Senate. How quickly things change. Regardless, debating this policy is healthy, and conservatives are justified to have this discussion. There are conservative arguments to be made for -- or against -- continuing the war in Afghanistan, just as I believe a principled conservative case could have been made (and was, in some quarters) against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a debate that conservatives, and all Americans, should keep having. War is not something to be entered into lightly; nor should support for it ever be contingent on whether the commander in chief has a D after his name, or an R.
This is interesting to me because of the recent ruckus started by Steele's comments about Afghanistan being Obama's War. David Corn is a very left-wing talking head on numerous news outlets. It's obvious that he's not happy with Obama's decision to escalate the action in Afghanistan. I fully admit I'm not particularly enthused by Obama's decision, but I've not harped against the effort like those on the left did against the effort in Iraq. I don't "support the troops, but not the war." I support them both - if the left had taken my lead, I am convinced the whole thing in Iraq would have been over a LOT sooner. The thing about Iraq is that I always could see how it would end, and I was expecting something like 10 years. But I never saw (still don't) how Afghanistan ends. Getting back to Steele, he was pilloried by members of his own party for what were perceived to be outrageous statements. Yet when Corn says effectively the same thing, but with a lot of time to write, read, and proof-read his statements, it's far more eloquent and makes sense. My take is that both Steele and Corn have it wrong. Afghanistan isn't Obama's War, it's his Vietnam. LBJ inherited military action in Vietnam and escalated it to absurd proportions.... I suggest Obama is doing the same. Obama railed against the Iraq War, calling it the wrong war at the wrong time. He fully warned us that he would choose to escalate things in Afghanistan when he was running for president. It should be no surprise - except that he railed against the surge and now embraces that same strategy for Afghanistan. I hate to break the news to guys like Lewis who think there was no debate over Iraq, among republicans. 9/11 was in '01. The hostilities in Iraq began in March of 2003. What exactly went on for more than a year before Bush gave the order to proceed? Colin Powell warned Bush, "if you break it, you own it." Whoa, that's debate among republicans. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to the 1st Bush wrote an op ed piece in the NY Times arguing against action in Iraq. Whoa, that's debate among republicans, too. Six republicans voted against the Iraq War Resolution (including Ron Paul), though Hillary and Kerry and numerous other prominent Democrats did vote for it.
So, some "R"s now oppose the war in Afghanistan, which had some justification to it, while still supporting the war in Iraq, which was an exercise in lunacy. As those beer commercials say - "brilliant!"
Afghanistan harbored and facilitated the man and organization who launched 9/11. Iraq did absolutely nothing, except saber-rattle and make GWB's father look like a fool. The sheer hypocritical insanity of the Far Right knows no bounds.
Afghanistan is the one thing I think President Obama has done mostly right. You can't allow a state to be run by a terrorist organization where it raises its funds through drug cultivation. Afghanistan could become the worst combination of Somalia, Yemen and Colombia in the 1990s. Furthermore, if this state infects Pakistan, then they have nukes at their disposal. The short term plan has to be military--get control of Afghanistan bit by bit. The long term plan has to be infrastructure-based--roads, schools and hospitals. It's a tough balance because while Afghanistan would be better off if it were dragged into the 20th Century (the 21st is too much to ask for), the tribalism of the country seems to fight against it. Perhaps the long-term solution is to break up what is Afghanistan today into two or three smaller states.
That's actually an idea worth considering. I have wondered about taking the same approach to Iraq. Most borders in that region were drawn by outsiders and are strictly arbitrary anyway.
