Naivete 101 with the Old Cranky Lady

Even for the woefully ignorant foreign policy views of the Times op-ed page, today's lead contribution, entitled "Gates, Truth and Afghanistan." Retaining much of the ideology that would have ended the Cold War in the 1970s by meeting every Soviet demand, the ship captained now by Andrew Rosenthal sails on.

"By the Bush administration’s standards, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was remarkably candid last week: acknowledging that popular opposition in Europe to the Iraq war was making it harder to persuade European governments to send more troops or take more risks to salvage Afghanistan."

Reality: True, the Bush administration is not candid in any real way, yet few regimes, save the leak-friendly Clinton one truly meet that standard. And, yes, Secretary Gates did acknowledge the Euro no-show in Afghanistan. What he should have said, however, is alien to diplomatic nicety.

"Nearly everything about President Bush’s botched war of choice in Iraq has made it much harder to win Afghanistan’s war of necessity. The fact that Mr. Gates is permitted such truth-telling is a measure of how bad things have gotten in Afghanistan and how much the United States needs more outside help."

Reality: War of choice, yes, perhaps a poor one, though not a terrible one under an objective historical view of the situation. Yes, the US needs outside help, but none will prove forthcoming.

"To help beat back a resurgent Taliban, countries like Germany, France, Spain and Italy must agree to send more combat troops and lift restrictions on where and how their forces would operate — including bars on deployments to the south where the fighting is heaviest. The United States and Europe also need to come up with more cash and a better nation-building strategy. All these problems need to be addressed before the spring when a new Taliban offensive is likely."

Reality: "Must agree" or "also need" or "need to be addressed" = NYT does not live in reality, again. These countries have NO interest, NONE, even under a Democratic presidency of sending troops to heavy fighting areas.

"A NATO failure would obviously be devastating for Afghanistan’s people, but it also would be dangerous for Europe, which relies on the alliance as its principal means of deterrence and defense. The intra-NATO resentments have gotten so bitter that Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, has said that he will withdraw his 2,500 troops — the Canadians have suffered heavy losses — as scheduled next year, unless other members ante up another 1,000 troops."

Reality: Europe does not care about the Afghan people. "Relies on" for "principal means of deterrence and defense" = free ride. NATO resentments have gotten so bitter because, wonder of wonders, Euros are annoyed that membership has its costs. I agree with Prime Minister Harper, he should pull the troops and Europe should feel embarrassed before returning to the work of creating a 200,000 page constitution.

"As Mr. Gates rightly noted, Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is a war that began in response to a terrorist attack on the United States, and the fight to defeat the Taliban is fully backed by international law, the United Nations and is a solemn legal commitment of NATO."

Reality: International law has never truly existed, failing time and time again, most recently under the NYT's beloved UN. Most NATO countries do not see the deployment of troops as a legal commitment.

"Europe’s failures in Afghanistan go far beyond disagreements over Iraq. Many European countries are not fully prepared to fight. The size of their armies, their training, their equipment are all insufficient for 21st-century conflicts, and their citizens are deeply casualty-averse. That is not surprising since many European leaders have not told their voters why winning in Afghanistan is essential."

Reality: Why are they not "fully prepared to fight"? Might it have something to do with the free-rider concept? Haunted by the uber-nationalism that swept their continent at the turn of the twentieth century, predictably, most European countries have tossed out the baby with the bathwater, choosing to pretend the year is 2208, and we are in the midst of a borderless utopian world. Just a guess, but aside from the UK, FR, and GER few other European leaders believe winning in Afghanistan is "essential."

"Mr. Gates has tried to deliver that message this week, warning Europeans that their own security from a terrorist attack depends on NATO prevailing in Afghanistan. Europe’s own leaders need to be making that case."

Reality: Why should Europe's own leaders waste the effort when Islam is heading to their area in the next few decades? When terrorist attacks succeed in changing governments, a la Spain in 2004? Europe has swung so far from 1914 that their goose is cooked for this century, and they know it.

"Mr. Gates might get further if he also acknowledged that even before NATO got involved, Washington never had enough troops in Afghanistan or a coherent strategy for stabilizing the country. That is probably too much to ask from Mr. Gates, who on Monday proved that he is still a full team player by suggesting that troop reductions in Iraq may not come down much below their presurge levels."

Reality: So what? If any of that "We are all Americans today" Le Monde nonsense from 9/11 meant anything, why would it matter? Why does Europe even need the US at all in Afghanistan? Why has a continent so de-militarized itself that if an invading Muslim force landed in Italy tomorrow it could hang flags of green and moons in nearly every Euro capital by the end of the month? Why does Europe care more about trees than Afghan people?

Note: Europe here refers to the West, specifically to NATO, owing to their history, Eastern European countries would do more if they had the financial resources, in fact, some are already doing more than the free-riders.

The capper...

"Having told at least one difficult truth on his way to Europe, Mr. Gates should be prepared to tell a few more when gets home. He can start by telling President Bush that a good part of the problem in Afghanistan is manufactured in Pakistan, which continues to give Al Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in its border regions. Mr. Bush needs a Pakistan strategy — and for that Europe can’t be blamed. Mr. Gates should also tell the president that so long as American forces are tied down in an unwinnable war in Iraq, there is little hope of winning in Afghanistan."

Reality: Pakistan strategy? Pray tell. My candidate, Barack Obama, had his worst moment of the campaign during the turmoil in Islamabad last December. The assertion that "Mr. Bush needs a Pakistan strategy" is an inane smear. Nothing more. Americans could accomplish their objectives along the precarious border, yet only with 20,000+ soldiers paying the ultimate price and even then, no guarantees in war. The Times seems to envision a world where complex diplomacy can change the situation. As for the last sentence, the Times cares no more about Afghanistan then Dems do about waterboarding, it's just a political issue to hammer the president with time and again. If the Old Cranky Lady's op-ed page contained serious commentary, it would back up its pro-Afghan campaign with calls for US conscription and an admitted willingness to suffer casualty rates last seen in Virginia in 1864. Mr. Obama's plan to attack without permission in Afghanistan if credible targets presented themselves could lead the US military to fight both al-Qaeda and Musharraf's outfit.

In conclusion, as ever, the Times op-ed page strongly believes that you need to stop your uncouth behavior, demands that you cease and desist, and is visibly distressed over the matter, whereas the WSJ op-ed page assesses the predicament somewhat differently... with a flurry of bullets fired at you if you should so much as show your face on the block.

Which do Americans prefer? Well, one political party has won seven of the last ten presidential elections...