Cynical Nation

I'll confess that I went to bed last night thinking Hugh Hewitt was delusional for proclaiming a big Bush win. A day later, however, and he almost has me convinced.

These debates inevitably reduce to a single, defining moment -- "You're no Jack Kennedy," or "There you go again," and the remaining details are quickly forgotten. Last night's defining moment is rapidly shaping up to be Kerry's "global test" for pre-emptive military action:

you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test....

Zell Miller's assertion that "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending" was met with hoots of derision from the punditry, but Kerry's remarks from last night would seem to bear Miller out. This gaffe plays precisely into the kind of image that Kerry has worked months to overcome. Did it doom Kerry's chances? No. Did it hurt him? I think the answer is yes, and more seriously than most viewers recognized at first.

On a related note, Lt. Smash is really pissed off at Kerry's charge that Bush screwed up in Afghanistan.

What would [Kerry] have done differently in Afghanistan?

Presumably, he would have used American military forces, instead of "outsourcing" the effort to local warlords. But what forces where available in theater at the time? The first large contingent of conventional forces in Afghanistan, a brigade of 1,000 US Marines, arrived at an airstrip near Kandahar on November 25, 2001. That city, which had been the last stronghold of Taliban leader Omar, didn't fall to anti-Taliban forces until December 7.

The only other US forces in Afghanistan at the time were Special Forces, and CIA paramilitaries. Their job was to help organize the various militias into a coherent force capable of defeating the Taliban, and to call in Coalition air strikes as required. It was this combination of Special Forces and local militia that had already driven the Taliban from the strategic city of Mazar-e-Sharif, the airbase at Bagram, and the capital Kabul.

The only US military on the ground at Tora Bora was a contingent of about two dozen Special Forces who were airlifted in to the area on December 2. Their mission was to coordinate the ground attack and to "laze" targets for US bombers. There is no way that these men could have taken Tora Bora without assistance -- And the Marines in Kandahar already had their hands full. In any event, Tora Bora was completely overrun by December 12 -- but not before the al Qaeda leadership escaped to Pakistan.

Let's make one thing clear: outside of this "outsourcing" plan, there would have been no significant military action in Afghanistan prior to November 25 -- but by the time those first Marines arrived, the Taliban had already been largely defeated. "Outsourcing" the war in Afghanistan was not Bush's idea. It was the Pentagon and the CIA that came up with this plan. But President Bush did approve it, and it worked.

The only military alternative to this plan would have been a massive invasion of Afghanistan with several heavy divisions. Of course, these divisions would have had to get to Afghanistan by coming ashore in Pakistan and driving through the ungoverned (and largely hostile) Tribal Areas, where the Pakistani army wouldn't even go. In any event, it would have taken several more months for these forces to arrive in theater -- plenty of time for the terrorists to dig in and prepare for the fight.

Does anyone see any problems with this plan? It seems to me that the Russians tried this approach a while back, and the British before them. Both got their asses handed to them. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the Pentagon presented this option to Bush, with all of the caveats above. In my judgement, Bush was right to reject this plan, and go instead with the "outsourcing" approach.

Presented with the same options, would Kerry have made the right decision? Judging from his remarks last night, I'd have to say "no."

But if we don't elect him, we'll never have to find out.