Michael Steele and the War in Afghanistan

PrintEmail

I'm hardly one to stick up for Michael Steele. 
 
Although a thoroughly pleasant individual, Steele was never the right man to reinvigorate the GOP as its National Committee Chairman and has - on countless occasions - endeavored to put his foot in his mouth, alienating the very people who send those checks to 310 First Street.
 
And now Steele's remarks at a Connecticut fundraiser pertaining to Afghanistan may well signal the end of his tumultuous Chairmanship of the GOP.
 
So, what exactly did he say?
 
According to the Huffington Post:
 
"This was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
 
Steele also accused Obama of "demonizing Iraq while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan."
 
"Well, if he's 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's tried over a thousand years of history has failed," Steele continued.
 
Within hours, the trifecta of John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were all criticizing Steele's remarks, with the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol calling on him to resign. Senator Jim DeMint even called on Steele to "apologize" to the military.
 
And yet, could this be one of the wisest things Steele has said in his role as Chairman? What - apart from merely questioning the war - has he done wrong here?
 
To address each point, it's pretty clear that when you send 100,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and tout a new strategy, it becomes your war. Yes, whether it was initiated by the President's predecessor or not, Afghanistan is Obama's war.
 
Secondly, why the uproar regarding Steele's remarks on history? He's spot on. This doesn't mean that he's calling for the troops to pull out, but it seems he's being lambasted for merely serving a warning.
 
The war in Afghanistan has been discussed a number of times on these pages, with contributors questioning what the actual goals and strategies are. It's a good question. It's a sad state of affairs when the Chairman of the GOP is attacked by members of his own party for challenging the existing strategy.
 
Yes, we all want "victory," but what does that mean?
 
In fact, Steele should be commended for raising the matter, whether he did it publicly or not. Despite the worrying death-- and financial--toll in Afghanistan, nobody is talking about it. It's baffling. There appears to be some sort of wicked consensus across party lines that we will stay in Afghanistan "until the job is done" with very little reference as to what "the job" is. I imagine that most Americans would be alarmed at the notion of Afghanistan as a perpetual war. But it's looking like one, especially with a vague strategy of not leaving until "Afghanis can stand up for themselves."  
 
That's not to say we should pull out. The Obama administration should be given the time to execute its strategy. But that being said there must be a serious dialogue about the costs - both short and long term - being incurred by Americans. Excuse the GOP imagery, but Afghanistan is the elephant in the room. For both parties.
 
It's bad enough - but entirely predictable - that members of Steele's own party would chastize him for speaking the truth, but when the Democratic National Committee then pipes up with vulgar remarks, saying that the Chairman is "rooting for failure" one has to question what consensus we have formed. As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post pointed out, accusing Steele of "undermining the morale of the troops," is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.
 
Is it really the official policy of both Republicans and Democrats to attack an individual first and check the facts later, if at all? Steele's detractors have made a great effort to condemn his remarks with various colorful adjectives, but have done very little to actually dissect and disprove his statement.
 
As a conservative, I think Steele's time as Chairman of the GOP should probably come to an abrupt end in early 2011. But not because of what he said, which may well end up being prescient.
 
First McChrystal and now Steele. Read more from YPNation on foreign policy.
 
(Photo credit: ajagendorf25; C.C. 2.0)