-
Obama's Misguided War Speech Shouldn't Be the Last Word on Afghanistan
Continued from previous page
Among the other stalwart conservatives who do not merely reject a surge but who are outspoken in their advocacy for the development of a plan to withdraw U.S. forces in Afghanistan are California's Dana Rohrbacher and Tennessee's John Duncan Jr.
They were joined on the eve of Obama's speech at West Point by an unexpected Republican dissenter, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who used a speech Monday at the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.to declare: "Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home."
Chaffetz, a pristine conservative by just about any standard, says, Obama's surge strategy makes no sense.
"We're talking about having nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. If the mission is to root out al-Qaida, we do not need to risk the lives of tens of thousands of troops to fulfill it," the congressman, who has traveled to Afghanistan and met with the top generals on the ground there, argues: "If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home. … I am opposed to nation-building. I do not believe it is the role and responsibility of the United States of America to be involved in every aspect of the globe."
Chaffetz announced his stance prior to Obama's speech because he did not want to be seen as just another Republican critic of the president. And he did so with a seriousness that merits attention, issuing a detailed assessment of the conflict and of his views regarding more serious threats facing the United States.
The Utah Republican is not a anti-war champion; he's not above suggesting that if the U.S. is going to remain in Afghanistan, it might as well go all-out militarily. But Chaffetz is trying to push the envelope, maybe even to open the debate up -- within his own party and beyond its boundaries.
That's something Obey is trying to do with his talk of a "war surtax."
The debate is what is needed.
Presidents are not supposed to begin and end the discussion about war. They, according to the Constitution, supposed to be part of a dialogue with Congress.
Obama laid out an agenda Tuesday night. Now, the Congress should start debating whether it wants to go along with that agenda. And the media should cover that debate -- not just as Democrats versus Republicans, or liberals versus conservatives. It should look for all the scope and character that is on display.
This, when all is said and done, is the essential discourse of the republic -- the discourse that James Madison, the father of our Constitution imagined, and demanded, when he warned more than 200 years ago:
Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
