It’s Not Obama’s War – It’s America’s

Ann Coulter is simply wrong about Afghanistan. What happens there affects more than just the political fortunes of President Obama.

Ann Coulter first led Michael Steele into temptation by arguing that Afghanistan is “Obama’s war,” which can’t be won and, therefore, should never have been waged. And now she’s back at it again, praising Steele and denouncing Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney and the so-called neoconservatives.

Enough's enough. Stop this lady before she shoots (her mouth off) again!

First off, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing other conservatives. In fact, I myself have been very critical of fellow conservatives, including even Bill Kristol. And some would say that this website, FrumForum, exists in no small measure to take other conservatives to task for their political and rhetorical errors and excesses.

But Coulter is simply wrong about Afghanistan. She is wrong to assert that Afghanistan is Obama’s war, because it is not: Afghanistan is America’s war. What happens there, after all, does not simply affect the political fortunes of one man, Barack Obama, or one administration. To the contrary: what happens in Afghanistan will profoundly affect the safety and security of the United States and the American people.

The problem with Coulter and Steele is that they are trying to make the war in Afghanistan a partisan and divisive issue. They are trying to separate conservatives and the Republican Party from the war and, in so doing, isolate President Obama and thereby deny him much-needed public support.

But presidents don’t lose wars; countries do. And if Barack Obama fails in Afghanistan, so, too, will America. And failure in war ought to be unacceptable to all conservatives, including Ann Coulter.

However, Coulter protests, Afghanistan simply isn’t winnable. After all, she insists,

As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.

Really? Everyone? Everyone it seems except the Taliban and the terrorists who found succor in Afghanistan while they planned and plotted for the destruction of New York City, Washington, D.C., the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and U.S. Capitol.

In truth, America is in Afghanistan because on September 11, 2001, we learned that, left alone and abandoned, Afghanistan will become a staging ground for the jihadists; and we dare not risk another terrorist attack on American soil.

Moreover, the United States is building up the Afghan military and the Afghan governments -- central and local governments, political and tribal municipalities -- because this is an integral part of our counterinsurgency strategy. And a counterinsurgency strategy -- as opposed to Joe Biden’s and Ann Coulter’s misnamed counterterrorism policy -- is the only way to eradicate the terrorist threat in Afghanistan.

That’s because the fundamental problem in Afghanistan is political, not military. The country lacks adequate security and effective governance. Thus the U.S. military absolutely and necessarily is engaged in nation-building, and thank goodness for that. If we want to win in Afghanistan, we have no choice but to nation-build.

But Coulter and other right-wing critics don’t like this. They don’t like counterinsurgency warfare, what with its emphasis on nation-building, force restraint, and restrictive rules of engagement (ROE).

As I explained here at FrumForum last fall, the ROE at least are a legitimate concern. They can and do change in every war, depending on battlefield conditions. Certainly, many of our troops view their ROE as overly restrictive. U.S. forces on the ground, it is said, have been unconscionably denied lifesaving air support and artillery fire.

That’s why General Petraeus has pledged to carefully review the ROE and how these rules are understood and implemented at the tactical level in the heat of battle. However, Petraeus has not pledged to abandon General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency campaign, which requires restrictive rules of engagement. In fact, quite the opposite: Petraeus and McChrystal agree that winning in Afghanistan means embracing counterinsurgency warfare.

Yet, bizarrely and inaccurately, Coulter accuses President Obama of dictating the U.S. military rules of engagement. Unfortunately, she is not alone. It has become a staple of conservative rhetoric in the blogosphere to blame Obama for the restrictive ROE in Afghanistan.

But the truth is that the U.S. military rules of engagement are not of Obama’s making! These rules are decided by U.S. military commanders, who are charged with executing the president’s overarching policy or strategy in Afghanistan.

Ann’s other points are even weaker if that’s possible. “Now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest,” she wails.

Of course, the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, ought not be for “all wars.” This is a straw man of Coulter’s own creation. Instead, the political class ought to be for all wars in which the safety and security of the American people are at stake -- hence the war in Afghanistan.

Ann Coulter has a sharp mind and an even sharper wit. But her powers of intellectual discernment have failed her on Afghanistan. She best pipe down and read and reflect to avoid further embarrassment. Her many fans -- and critics -- have come to expect better of her.