Joseph Farah: “I Was Obviously Wrong” on War
This is an about-face:
A record 60 Americans were killed in Afghanistan in June – the most ever in the nearly decade-long war that is not winding down, but rather intensifying under the leadership of Barack Obama, the “peace candidate” in 2008.
Worse yet, U.S. soldiers, no doubt demoralized by seemingly interminable wars on two fronts, neither of which has any clear definition of victory, are taking their own lives in record numbers – 32 just last month and 145 since Jan. 1.
My question: Where are the anti-war protests? What happened to them? Do those protesters from earlier this decade think the wars are over? Or did they really not care about these conflicts in the first place? Were they only truly interested in protesting the old leadership in the White House?
For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand our objectives in either Iraq or Afghanistan any more.
… I admit I was a supporter of both of these campaigns. I was obviously wrong.
Trouble is, will Joseph Farah make the same mistake against the next time a Republican president is in office?
I emailed him the following:
There was very little protest against the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place, as it was seen as something we had to do.
Not so with the invasion of Iraq, which was seen as an unnecessary war of choice—this is where the worldwide street protests came into play. These protests, for the most part, were attempts to prevent the invasion of Iraq, and when that didn’t work, most protestors gave up within a few years.
I wish it didn’t take a Democrat in office to make you see that you were wrong, but it’s good that you’ve had a change of heart. If you feel strongly about withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, you’re in as good a position as any (and far better than most, actually) to jump start the anti-war activity once again.
[...] McCarthy notes that Joseph Farah admits he was wrong on Iraq and Afghanistan. | | | | | [...]
“My question: Where are the anti-war protests? What happened to them? Do those protesters from earlier this decade think the wars are over? Or did they really not care about these conflicts in the first place? Were they only truly interested in protesting the old leadership in the White House?
Joseph Farah meet Cindy Sheehan. And if you hadn’t called the antiwar protesters so many names way back when, maybe they would still be around.
And many of them would be conservative.
Remeber Ron Paul – a prophet is not without honor except in his own land.
You have someone who has been uniformly accurate in his analysis, all the while suffering the slings and arrows from both sides of the aisle but light cannot be overcome with shadow.
Where are the protesters? Mostly still there. Antiwar.com has not changed much because the government has not changed much. Cindy Sheehan now has her blog. Even Democracy Now! has weekly stories about the same thing.
Just as code-pink has quieted, Michael Steele has found a voice, but there will always be partisans who complain against whomever it is if it isn’t of their party, not much differently than Mr. Farah – he also admitted far too late about his buyer’s remorse over telling everyone they must support Bush for his second term.
Asking why they aren’t still around after 10 years? People move on, especially when it sinks in that their efforts are useless.
Waking up late to the truth and acknowledging is better than sleep-walking as a neocon cheerleader. Let’s stop casting stones when someone enters neocon detox and embrace them with a welcome, we’ve been waiting for you.
A lot more people are being killed. That MUST be because lovers of war are EXPANDING the war.
Couldn’t possibly be a bleeding heart ROE that values enemy combatants over our own, couldn’t possibly be because of cutting funding (lib trick of expanding funding, but magically a lot of it disappears before it does our soldiers any good. maybe went to provide squirrel bridges or $10,000 road signs, or prop up some Senator’s son’s business and such.)
Couldn’t possibly be because of weak and apologetic and directionless leadership.
Better cut our losses and bring our people and treasure home, rather than let this criminal class squander it overseas, even worse than over the previous 8 years…
I agree with obi juan. What’s the point? It’s going to continue whether or not the people approve. The system is broken.
Grats to you man. the media still cheerleads the wars esp Fox with the exception of Bill O’Rielly who was never a bush fan. The day fox comes out against these wars is the day well get out.
Whether one is heartened about these conservative about-faces or annoyed at their tardiness is a matter of temperament, since there are as many different opinions as there are different personality types.
What’s important, more important than gloating, more important than applauding, more important than speculating about motives, is that we start having a conversation about why the foreign interventions were a bad idea. Which principles of human nature did they run up against?
I’d like to hear some of these newly minted interventionist skeptics explain exactly why they think the wars were a bad idea. If they do that convincingly, they can go a long way towards convincing folks that their conversions are sincere, rather than merely pragmatic.
“Where are the protesters? Mostly still there.”
No, actually mostly they are not. With the election of Obama, they have proven that they were mostly anti-Bush protesters, not anti-war protesters.
And let’s give Mr. Farah a break. How do we expect to win converts if we immediately scold them once they come around to our side? This seems unhelpful. Mr. Farah runs a very important high traffic website. This is big news for our side. Let’s celebrate it for the good news that it is.
Thousands marched on DC back in March. Both anti-Bush and anti-Obama sentiment was expressed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002876.html
There were no counter-protestors. Where was Protest Warrior?
There are no protests because there is no draft. The minute this generation gets forcibly yanked away from their iPod,iPad, iWhat-the-hells and finds out that blowing people away for real and not getting to save thier games in progress, is, like, harshing thier buzz, there will be a real, instant, molten-hot antiwar movement created in 140 characters or less.
“Whether one is heartened about these conservative about-faces or annoyed at their tardiness is a matter of temperament…”
Could also be a matter of mis-reading what others were saying, failing to cut through the satire and snark and caracitures.
“I voted for Bush… twice.” DOESN’T translate out to “I can’t recognize a lie, or I believe everything he said, or I approved of war.” Go back to the TAC archives over the last 2 or 3 years, and see if there was maybe something you were missing, maybe obscured by the “anti-war-snark-noise”, and maybe some who were so passionate, that they let dishonesty override their better judgement… on both sides of some issues.
It is just as odious to some of us to hear the mantra, “Well, I’ve always called Afghanistan the ‘good war’, where to a clear-thinking person, war is war.” ALWAYS BAD, sometimes necessary. But let politicians who wage war, expect life imprisonment, regardless of how “holy” or “necessary” the war seemed.
I’ve felt that way for 40 years. But I’ve had discussions with people who were yelling the word “neocon” so loudly, they couldn’t hear me.
Some people can’t intelligently discuss the reasons that led us to war. Look for them to say stupid stuff like, “The average US soldier would like to see 19 dead innocent men, women, and children for every enemy they kill.”
———————————————
I am sure we can ALL AGREE that ALL WAR IS EVIL. War must be a LAST RESORT. You get the job done as quickly, and as cheaply, and as safely, as possible, and YOU END THE WAR.
(Then a LIBERAL will send in the ADVISORS and LIE about keeping the war going, and nation-building, and social-engineering.)
Most of us who voted for BUSH, were uneasy about his taking us to war in IRAQ. In retrospect, we see he LIED to the the public, like some LIBERAL, by trying to DUMB DOWN the reasons, to a single issue – WMD.
Maybe the public could have handled the actual reasons:
What part of “hundreds of thousands of people gassed. Entire villages, men women children laying dead and rotting under Saddam.” don’t we get?
What part of “attacking and invading our ally countries like Kuwait”, and “paying 35 thousand dollars to families of suicide bombers”, and “shooting at UN and US Planes with rockets” don’t we get?
What part of “rape rooms” where entire classes of junior high school girls are passed through” don’t we get?
What part of “warned him for years, passed dozens of UN resolutions, most of the world condemned these actions” don’t we get?
What part of “global chess game, choosing where the least damage and least resources will have the most lasting effect in the region” don’t we get? Using 4GW concepts to move the war to a country with infrastructure?
What part of “ripped the head of the monster off in just DAYS”, but then “hung around and fought insurrection and badguy invaders for YEARS – OUT OF COMPASSION and desire to REBUILD THEIR COUNTRY” don’t we get?
What part of “Idiots will say it was for the OIL” and “Idiots will say the US and UK and OZ killed more civilians than bad guys” don’t we get?
What part of “removed 550 tons of yellowcake, the makings of nuclear bombs, rogue CIA-sponsored actors, like JOE WILSON, would LIE about Saddam NOT collecting yellowcake”, don’t we get?
———————————————
We can have a dialog with the PEACERS on the PROS and CONS of the war, when they stop the LIES that the War on Terror is something BUSH INVENTED. When they stop SNEERING about BUSH APOLOGISTS, and claiming that BUSH wanted HUNDREDS tortured, instead of accepting that his goal was the “near-torture” and waterboarding of THREE PEOPLE, claiming that this might save thousands of lives. Then there IS HONEST DEBATE about what his goals and methods were. (Consider: Waterboarding is not torture, by the BUSH DEFINITION, but it IS ‘mock execution’ which is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by the Geneva Conventions.)
When the LIBERAL LIES stop (“don’t listen to RUSH, or CHENEY, ONLY listen to POWELL and McCain and OBAMA”), then we can begin to assign PERCENTAGES of right and wrong to the PROS AND CONS of what we have done, and the course forward.
So let me get this straight. We’re suppose to burn this man at a stake, once he comes around to our viewpoint, because he didn’t come to it sooner?
People, this is why politics is the way it is! The attitudes you show here! If you have a sincere change of heart, the people you now agree with still condemn you as a racist/sexist/imperialist/homophobe/socialist/Communist/neo-con/etc. because you weren’t marching in their camps from day one, and you immediately earn the ire of your former buddies. It’s better to shut up when you have differing opinions, maybe start talking about other things and write columns on other subjects, rather than stand up and get cut off at the knees by both sides. What he did was an act of political courage, and you’re showing only too well why it is such an act.
Why the hell even try to convince people to change their minds if, immediately after they do so, we berate them for not doing it sooner, and immediately imply that it’s purely political? Or add a snarky comment implying they’ll change their tune the second “their guy” gets into office? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. His last line alone convinces me that this is genuine. He didn’t make any excuse like Ann Coulter did when she defended Steele, that “it’s different now.” He said clearly that he was wrong ALL ALONG. That’s not something you do in politics. You do the standard line of “Well, under Bush it was a necessary action, but it has gone on for far too long so we should exit out” or something like that.
Peacer?
The genius of Miguel de Cervantes was to recognize that no matter how bad things are the blundering fool can always make them worse. The Broadway takeaway, which Washington DC bought into, was to take sentimental slop like Impossible Dream as a call to greatness. Impossible means impossible, as in can’t be done in the real world. Big time screwups, like turning 2 countries upside down leaving rightside up nowhere on their horizon, while at the same time infantilizing your own country under a National Security blanket, call for a little more than contrition.
The Don at least was simpatico and good for a laugh.
Ah, I see my mistake. Peacers “who want to dialog’ is what I should have meant. And as you point out, we won’t find those among a self-styled meritocracy.
The question we should ask is not “when did you come aboard” since, as we all know, in Christ’s kingdom timing is not exactly important. Rather, the question we should be asking is “Do you support a change a U.S. foreign policy for a more realist and non-interventionist approach?” That way, it becomes easier to tell who is taking a new approach and who is just opposing the war just because a Democrat is in the White House. Some of the new converts, as Larison points, may just be doing the latter. What we need are more people like Walter Jones Jr., who really did change their minds.
Sean, you made some good points. That is, I need to ask myself, “Has my viewpoint changed, because I dislike the politics of the current Commander In Chief.”
And, for me personally, the answer would have to be “Yes”.
I pictures the libs as being the “nationbuilders” and the “appeasers” both domestically and internationally.
I picture the last few lib presidents (Since Johnson. Johnson spent troops and war machines the way Obama spends our money.), chipping away at the military, like Obama is currently doing, but cutting back actual troops and financial support, and reducing support politically.
So, yes. Much of my feeling of “Time to get out”, is because I think this is NOT a war that Obama “wants to win” (except in a mild domestic political sense).
Good points Sean.
But lest some lib, with their non-sequitor thinking, then attempt to invest me with some prior “love of dead babies for US Imperialism’s sake”, let me point out that NONE of MY words on any post on TAC have every been intended to indicate my desire for war. I have attempted instead to point out that some of us need to admit a possibility of an honest dialog, including some of the reasons people had for allowing the war to be prosecuted in their names.