Yes, we've only been at war there for a decade and the GOP front-runner cannot even say "Afghans." But let me say I found his comments as a whole refreshing and a sign that the GOP may be finally shucking off some of its more deranged ambitions for a second American century. Obama's surge in Afghanistan is second only to his debacle in Libya in foreign policy choices (although Netanyahu's humiliation of the president is not far behind either). But you can tell this is a real shift from a conservative perspective when the permanent war enthusiasts at AEI are having a cow:
“I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican – supporting American strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that,” she said. “Romney has proven himself a little bit of a weathervane and I guess he senses that positioning himself in this place is good for his campaign — attempting to appease Ron Paul’s constituents without actually being Ron Paul. You can’t really triangulate on these issues. Either you think we’re fighting a war we need to win or you think we ought to bring all the troops home, but he said it all there.”
There is no path between total war and total retreat? Of course there is. And the more important point, as Romney seems to realize, is that a) this is unaffordable when have a massive late-imperial debt like the US has, b) unconscionable when we are cutting healthcare for the elderly in order to fight a war for a country that is itself half-hearted in its commitment and a government that is corrupt to its core, and c) what on earth would victory look like anyway?
There is a path to restoring American vitality. It involves retrenchment abroad, entitlement reform at home, and a new immigration policy that gives every foreign graduate a green card, and shifts the emphasis from family connections to skills. If Romney can articulate that, he'll do well.
(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.)
The Dish 