Kagans’ March on Peshawar
Posted on December 2nd, 2008
by Daniel Koffler |
|
His mercy fills the Khyber hills — his grace is manifold; and now Robert Kagan wants to launch an invasion of Pakistan. And if the prerequisite personnel and material resources are running low, never fear: our supply of euphemisms is abundant bordering on limitless.
Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas…[W]hether or not Islamabad is happy, don’t the international community and the United States, at the end of the day, have some obligation to demonstrate to the Indian people that we take attacks on them as seriously as we take attacks on ourselves?
Allow me to point out that Kagan’s scheme isn’t so much a response to the recent horrors in Mumbai as it is an example of the Kagan family’s stochastic targeting mechanism for their incitements to war drawing Pakistan’s number yet again, a bit like two coinflips in a row coming up heads. Quoting myself last November when a different Kagan (I lose track) and Michael O’Hanlon wrote a terrible op-ed arguing (literally!) that there’s no cause for concern about the prospects for a successful occupation of Pakistan because it would be feasible “somehow”:
Do Kagan and O’Hanlon actually believe that there could be such a coalition? Do they actually believe any of what they’ve written? It’s as if they believe the US military is capable of achieving absolutely anything, provided we describe their mission with the right adjectives. (”Elite,” “crack,” etc.) Talk about a Care Bear Stare — Kagan and O’Hanlon can remake south Asia without drawing upon the magical energy of the Will of the American People, just as long as they, personally, maintain a sufficiently steely will. They’ll do it somehow.
Following up Sunday’s discussion, it seems any plausible definition of neoconservatism will have to include the axiom: never, under any circumstances, learn from a mistake, since to do so would show weakness to the (real or imagined) enemy. The tale will be told of their charity from Balkh to Kandahar.
Filed under: Foreign policy, War
This should dovetail nicely with the new counterinsurgency meme coursing through the veins of the mod squad at “Obama’s Pentagon in Waiting” (Center for a New American Security) and all those key Democratic “realists” morphing into newly-empowered military courtiers among the political chatterati, including the editors at The New York Times, which, two weeks after the election were already rosy with the idea of endless war (now that, apparently, the “adults” are in charge).
Last night, PBS’ News Hour hosted what will no doubt be many, many sage interviews with Madeleine Albright. The former Clinton Secretary of State and reportedly close confidant of our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Albright once famously said to a bewildered Gen. Colin Powell, ”What’s the point of having this superb military that you’ve always been talking about if we can’t use it?” I’m glad she kept hope alive.
Don’t even acknowledge a mistake.
I have this vision of the rotund Fred Kagan leading the charge mounted on a two humped Bactrian camel…he could be immortalized by a neocon artist a la Lady Butler’s painting “The Return of an Army” showing Dr. Brydon returning wounded on horseback as the sole survivor from the First Afghan War.
This is depressing: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/right-wingers_and_neocons_love_obama%27s_cabinet_appointments/
I won’t be surprised if Kristol and Kagan will join the Obama love fest
“now that, apparently, the “adults” are in charge”
Great line. It perfectly captures the attitude of all of my politically progressive but personally conservative southern friends. These well-educated, tidy professionals rightly saw the main difference between Dem’s and Repub’s as what another poster on this site described as the difference between relatively competent statism and manifestly incompetent statism.
They mostly came of age during the Clinton years and were raised on identity politics, easy credit, and America’s calling to literally save the world. If it weren’t for abortion and gay marriage, they would all vote Republican.
I haven’t given up on them, yet. Every e-mail gets a link to the Campaign for Liberty.
You know, in a way, I can twist this situation into a positive one for us conservatives. If Kagan and Kristol join in on the Obama love fest, as a previous poster suggested, that’s quite possibly the key to a resurgence of principled non-intervention in this country, once people realize that the neocons aren’t “far right” (as the media is fond of telling us) …. In the mean time, we’ve just gotta make sure that the neoconservatives become just as associated with the Democrats as they currently are the Republicans. If that happens (which it appears to already be), maybe people will wise up to the fact that it’s not conservative ideology that is creating this mess, but a fringe group of neoconservatives who derive their worldview from being former advocates of Trotsky ….