Jules Crittenden had this in his blog yesterday, but I didn’t get it put up. A very interesting article.
It’s the latest in Democratic strategic thinking. Sen. Russ Feingold in the Wall Street Journal. Bear with me, because this is really complicated, and also doesn’t make any sense. But I think this is how it works.
Remember when the Dems said the Iraq war was bad, we needed to get out, because all we were doing was making al Qaeda stronger? That didn’t entirely turn out to be true, but they wanted us to stop wacking the mole in Iraq and go wack it in Afghanistan, where the mole had been keeping its head down.
OK, we wacked the daylights out of the al Qaeda mole in Iraq instead, which the locals really appreciated, because they had had it with the AQ mole at that point. Then, because the mole was popping up again in Afghanistan, we ramped up mole-wacking operations over there … with new, improved rubber mallet wielding tachniques, thanks to our mole-wacking experience in Iraq. At the same time, we applied increasing pressure on the Paks to wack the mole on their side of the arcade.
Feingold explains that wacking the mole in Afghanistan will just make it pop up even more in the Paks’ tippy nuclear-armed wack-a-mole machine. This is actually convenient in terms of long-term Democratic strategy, to set aside the wack-a-mole analogy for a minute and speak plainly, because if you don’t have troops on the ground in a place, Pakistan for example, then you don’t have to withdraw them. It makes abandonment a lot easier.