The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTed Rall Archive
Democrats Share the Blame for Afghanistan
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

President Joe Biden is taking heat from Democrats, not for his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan — that’s popular — but for his haphazard pullout that, self-serving Rumsfeldian “stuff happens,” “wars end messily” platitudes aside, could have been executed more efficiently. They blame George W. Bush for starting America’s longest war, arguing that what he began inexorably led to our most shocking military defeat and its humiliating aftermath.

I am sympathetic to any and all criticism of our intervention in Afghanistan. I was an early critic of the war and got beaten up for my stance by media allies of the Bush administration. But the very same liberals who now pretend they’re against the Afghan disaster stood by when it mattered and did nothing to defend war critics because Democrats — political leaders and voters alike — went far beyond tacit consent. They were actively complicit with the Republicans’ war at the time of the invasion and throughout the decades-long occupation of Afghanistan.

Now, the deadbeat dads of defeat are trying to stick the GOP with sole paternity. This is a ridiculous attempt to rewrite history — one that damages Democratic credibility among the party’s progressive base, which includes many anti-war voters, and risks the possibility that they will make the same mistake again in the future.

Twenty years later, it is difficult for some to believe that the United States responded to 9/11 by cultivating closer ties to the two countries with the greatest responsibility for the attacks, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and attacking a country that had nothing to do with it, Iraq, and another one that had tenuous links, Afghanistan. Yet that’s what happened. And Democrats participated enthusiastically in the insanity.

The sweeping congressional authorization to use military force against Afghanistan and any other target chosen by the president was introduced in the Senate three days after the attacks by Tom Daschle, the then-Democratic majority leader. Every Democratic senator supported destroying Afghanistan. So did every Democratic member of the House of Representatives, except for Barbara Lee, who was roundly ridiculed as weak and naive, received death threats and was denied leadership posts by her own party to punish her for refusing to play ball. The legal justification to attack the Taliban was a bipartisan affair.


Democratic support for Bush’s war reflected popular sentiment: Voters of both parties signed off on the Afghan war by wide margins. Even after weeks of bombing that featured numerous news stories about innocent Afghan civilians being killed willy-nilly, 88% of voters told Gallup that they still approved of the military action. Approval for the war peaked at 93% in 2002 and started to decline. Nevertheless, popular support still hovered around 70% throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, a number that included so many Democrats that then-Sen. Barack Obama ran much of his successful primary and general election campaign on his now obviously moronic message that “we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan” when Bush invaded Iraq. “Our real focus,” Obama continued to say after winning the presidency, “has to be on Afghanistan.”

Nine months into his first term, Obama felt so confident that Democratic voters supported the war that he ordered his surge of tens of thousands of additional soldiers above the highest troop level in Afghanistan under the Bush administration. Fifty-five percent of Democrats approved of the surge. Domestic support for the war only went underwater after the 2010 assassination of Osama bin Laden by U.S. troops in Pakistan seemed to render the project moot.

There was a strong anti-war movement based on the left throughout the Bush and Obama years against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of protesters marched against the Iraq war. Opposition was sustained over the years. Far fewer people turned out for far fewer protests against the Afghanistan war. It’s impossible to avoid the obvious conclusion: Even on the left, people were angry about Iraq but OK with Afghanistan.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing the Republican Party and Bush for the decision to invade Afghanistan. The war was their idea. But they never could have started their disaster, much less extended and expanded it under Obama, without full-throated support from their Democratic partners and successors.

This story has few heroes.

Hide 6 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. gottlieb says:

    Obviously the Big Lie of 911 steam-rolled over critical thinking as the jingoist nationalism that took over post-911 fueled the Patriot Act, ubiquitous surveillance and Forever War.

    As long as the Big Lie holds, so too does the ‘justification’ for global revenge against an enemy that does not exist.

  2. Democrats Share the Blame for Afghanistan

    This is like saying oxygen shares the blame with hydrogen for water being wet. One component of imperialism can’t work without the other. FDR neutered the Democrats’ union labor base and Clinton completed the transformation of the party into Republican Lite.

  3. SafeNow says:

    Afghanistan was selected not DESPITE its being peripheral, but BECAUSE it was peripheral. And expensive, of course. The US bipartisan war-predilection template, starting with Korea, is:
    1) peripheral; and 2) expensive. This is similar to the lawyer’s template for handling a case: complex, expensive, drawn-out and hostile. There are many lawyers in Congress, which facilitates the transition. Same philosophy.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  4. Darkwing says:

    The republicans are just as much to blame.

  5. raga10 says:

    When will you ever learn? “There is only one party, The Money party… and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”

  6. Trump had already started the withdrawal and was planning to be out by May. The illegit Biden regime came in and wrecked everything. The blame for the humiliation lies entirely with the Dimocrats and their typical idiocy.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ted Rall Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
How America was neoconned into World War IV