Back when George W. Bush either was or wasn't in charge, Bob Englehart drew this cartoon, which I note does not specifically reference Afghanistan but certainly made the point that is being made once more in that country.
Specifically by Signe Wilkinson, but by several others as well.
I like Wilkinson's take because, like Englehart, she simply points out the overall folly of becoming involved in the region rather than trying to cast specific blame for this or that statement or policy.
My own take is that there is a line somewhere in the process of criticism -- I'm not sure where -- that, if you step over it, you have to begin to offer solutions, not just condemnations.
And I say that despite hating the "Well, what's your plan?" riposte when it is offered as an empty defense of an indefensible policy.
But we'd all love to see the plan that is better than simply trying to stabilize the mess.
And it's complicated by the fact that this was the "good war," and Iraq was the "bad war," though I'm not sure that distinction has a lot of current relevance in terms of a solution at this stage.
In the case of Iraq, we invaded on the basis of falsified excuses, against the advice of nearly the entire world, and then compounded the folly with a cascading series of missteps, errors and catastrophic blunders that, looking back, defy any rationale.
There's no way to fix what we did there, and there's probably no way to fix Afghanistan, either, but at least, in the latter case, there's a relatively identifiable opponent.
For the moment, anyway.
And perhaps that moment has passed.
Still, we should remember that, while we may have gone in to punish the Taliban for sheltering al Qaeda, they were, as David Horsey noted in this May, 2001 cartoon, some bad cats anyway.
And that they were some bad cats who came to power because the Soviets dropped by to screw everything up and then leave. After which their own government also imploded.
There are all sorts of lessons to be learned, most of which work better if you learn them before you make the mistakes they are there to warn you against.
In any case, I'd suggest that the value of no exit/quagmire cartoons at this stage is to warn against anyone who thinks there's a way out.
Joe Heller plays on a gag normally used by conservatives to attack the President -- itself an updating of an ancient meme that went:
Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land."
Then Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land."
Today, the government has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses and raised the price of Camels (and insert updated accusation to target current president).
The current meme is that we now have no jobs, no cash, no hope, and the difference here is that Heller neither blames Obama for the mess he inherited nor does he waste time blaming Bush for the mess he got us into.
Here we are, and, if you think there's a way out, you're part of the problem.
Anybody got a solution?
Matt Wuerker has a cynical take on the current plan, and, while I don't entirely agree, I don't entirely disagree, either. He's not blaming Obama for the mess, only suggesting that Obama's answer is to temporize.
I'm disinclined to put too much into the idea of "preserving the legacy," because I really don't see that type of ego involved with this particular president.
But I don't think it's finger-pointing to suggest that he's flailing, and I'm pretty sure this particular president's type of ego doesn't like flailing.
So let's go back to that thing about proposing a solution:
I don't think there is one that doesn't involve a time machine.
And I hope the question of Afghanistan comes up at the next debates of both parties.
If I really had my way, there'd be a trap door under each candidate, and if any one of them were to pretend to have a solution ...
Speaking of answers
xkcd not only addresses an issue I deal with regularly, but even cites a study I just passed along to the kids who read the piece I edit.
The kids write most of the reviews, reports and interviews, but I drop in two short health/science briefs and I am careful to temper most of the studies as "suggesting" rather than presenting them as proven, established facts.
Even the ones that seem valid are often trumpeted with "facts" that the researchers themselves backed away from, like a study with a very strong sample base and seemingly solid analysis that found a correlation between families with dishwashers and kids with allergies.
The "hygiene hypothesis" is worth remarking on -- particularly in our current "Boil the Baby!" world of continual parental panic -- but even the researchers found the idea of a specific, causal link between dishwashing methods and allergies a bit dubious.
Not that you'd know it from the headlines.
I've also been known to cite a study and then point out its shortcomings, like tiny sample sizes or dubious sponsorships, but I usually pass over the stuff that seems clearly bogus.
Which is to say that, when I am searching for source material, I pass over a lot of studies, some of which are getting substantial attention.
We could use some trap doors in the public relations offices of research universities, too.
Comments