The End of the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan?
Morning Jolt February 26, 2014 Oh, CPAC. What Are We Going to CPAC just wouldn't be CPAC without some opening controversies, now would it? Here's the scoreboard: Atheists: Previously invited, now disinvited. This was the somewhat surprising news Tuesday morning…
And by Tuesday afternoon, CPAC had made the decision that the atheist group wouldn't have a booth after all. Meghan Snyder, a spokeswoman for CPAC, said in a statement to CNN that "American Atheists misrepresented itself about their willingness to engage in positive dialogue and work together to promote limited government." The rescinding of the invitation did not mitigate Brent Bozell's anger, who declared, "no conservative should have anything to do with this conference." GOProud: Technically invited but disallowed from having a booth, an agreement that some former board members find to be a sad joke:
Chris Christie: Attending. I don't mind the invite, but this year's invitation sure does conflict with the explanation for the lack of an invite last year:
So what's changed since last year? Is Christie now better on Second Amendment issues? Is his future in the national Republican party brighter now? Last year I wrote that the organizers of CPAC should sit down and try to get a clearer sense of what the purpose of the conference is. "Begin with the end in mind," as Stephen Covey wrote. What headline does the American Conservative Union want coming out of three days of events? When attendees go home, they should say, "I'm really glad I went because [blank]." Now fill in the blank. Is it meant to showcase the rising stars of the conservative movement? Or is part of the experience bringing out the "old favorites" like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich? Is it meant to hash out policies, or is it more of a showcase for the most rousing, rah-rah speakers? After news broke that Donald Trump would be speaking, someone I respect declared that his appearance is "fun and entertaining. If anything, we'd be better off with more of that at CPAC and less debates on tax law." I don't know if it's possible for me to disagree more strongly, but then again, I'm not in charge of persuading people to buy tickets to attend this shindig. Kevin Eder: "Obviously, the real purpose of CPAC is to generate outraged headlines and tweets about CPAC." The End of the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan? Some will cheer this news, but it's hard to believe good things will come from it:
Most Americans are sick of dealing with Afghanistan, and it's been obvious that President Obama wants to wash his hands of the whole deal, even long before Robert Gates told us: "The president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out." If Karzai won't work out an agreement, maybe we don't have much of a choice. But if a country full of bloody warlords and ruthless tribal factions looks like hell with roughly 38,000 U.S. troops in the country, imagine what it will be like when our guys leave. Jen Rubin, offering one of the grimmer visions:
One of the more infuriatingly ignorant arguments of the anti-war crowd is the suggestion that American military presences in places like this create violence, instead of mitigating it. It's as if they've never heard of the Vietnamese Boat People. When U.S. troops leave, they don't leave anti-Colonialist utopias in their wake. Instead, the biggest bully left standing starts consolidating his power through brutality and oppression. In 2013, 9,571 Iraqi civilians were killed in violence, according to Iraqibodycount.org. For the preceding four years, it had been around 5,000 per year. (The last U.S. combat troop left Iraq in December 2011.) Already 1,863 have been killed so far this year. You may recall the news from January that al-Qaeda-allied militants were flying the flag of al-Qaeda in Fallujah and Ramadi. What you may not have heard is that the Iraqi government still hasn't managed to retake control of those cities:
We can have a less interventionist foreign policy, where we tell the rest of the world that we're tired of sacrificing our own blood and treasure to help a bunch of ingrates; we can tell the world to resolve their differences without us. But that comes at a price. For example, the death toll in Syria's civil war is now more than 140,000. As for that deal with Assad: "The Syrian government has sought a new delay, until mid-May, for the export of its chemical weapons arsenal and is balking at a deadline looming in three weeks to destroy the 12 facilities that once produced the munitions, Western diplomats said Friday." The Difficulty of 'Finding Mr. Righteous' Today My friend Lisa de Pasquale has a new book out, Finding Mr. Righteous. It's a doozy. Deeply personal and brutally honest, Lisa lays out how she learned some hard lessons about love, career, and her spiritual journey from disbelief to belief. It's "chick lit," and as you probably guessed, not what I usually read. Think Bridget Jones crossed with This Town. A lot of her book illuminates the quirks of the modern D.C. dating scene, and it reinforces the sad conclusion that my views and advice on dating and relationships are not merely dated but carbon-dated. Apparently courtship is pretty much kaput, most guys just don't ask girls out, and nobody likes to specify whether they're actually in a relationship anymore:
Another good line: "Joe liked to network, which is D.C.- speak for drinking with people in the same career field as you." Those who are still dating may see themselves in the misadventures; those of us past that stage of life may read this and be spectacularly thankful to be beyond it. Are most of today's young people really terrified of being in an actual, grown-up relationship? When did becoming a married parent in the suburbs turn into this fate to be avoided at all costs? Or is it that in an era of personal iTunes playlists, on-demand television, and everything else in life tailored to our personal preferences, we expect our potential mates to be a perfect match, tailored to our tastes? ADDENDUM: I'm scheduled to return to the panel on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record this evening. Tune in; I'll try to sneak in any updates on the mystery of who stole Byron York's coat from the green room. To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: |
Comments
Post a Comment