9/22: To Escalate, Or Not To Escalate...

It's been over 36 hours since Gen. Stanley McChrystal's leaked Afghanistan memo was published in The Washington Post, but the topic of Afghanistan is still generating considerable commentary in the blogosphere. Conservative bloggers are upset that Pres. Obama is expressing skepticism about following Gen. McChrystal's recommendations and sending more troops to Afghanistan. Jennifer Rubin warns that failing to deploy more troops "will only cement [Obama's] image as a Jimmy Carter-esque figure -- weak, irresolute, and easily manipulated -- and invite endless challenges to the U.S."

Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, are still preoccupied with health care reform, and they've yet to fully engage on the Afghanistan topic in the way that they did with Iraq. That said, skepticism about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan appears to be growing in many corners of the lefty blogosphere. digby is particularly explicit in her opposition to a troop escalation:

"Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy. There have been many campaign promises 'adjusted' since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments it has blithely turned aside in the interest of 'pragmatism.'"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Benen) are mildly encouraged by reports that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) is modifying his health care bill in order to appease Dems. However, lefty bloggers (Green, desmoinesdem) are still raising money in order to run a TV ad criticizing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) for opposing a public insurance option. Similarly, the liberal blog Firedoglake is targeting three House Dems whom it perceives as insufficiently committed to a public option.
• Conservative bloggers (E Pluribus Unum, Rubin, Hawkins) are upset that deposed Pres. Manuel Zelaya has returned to Honduras three months after he was ousted in a coup, and they're criticizing the Obama admin. for supporting Zelaya.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hinderaker, Lane, Vadum, Geraghty, Morrissey) are buzzing about Patrick Courrielche's claim that the NEA is pushing artists to advocate for Obama's agenda. Liberal bloggers think conservatives are hypocritical to complain about the NEA's conduct.

AFGHANISTAN: Weak! Weak! Weak!

Conservative bloggers are furious that Obama is expressing skepticism about sending more troops to Afghanistan:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If Obama thinks the war is unwinnable, it would have been nice for him to tell the American public during the campaign, instead of completely reversing himself on a key provision of his foreign-policy vision less than a year into his presidency. Why, if we didn't know any better, we might think that Obama was dovish and unwilling to defy his party's pacifist grassroots the whole time, and that all of his 'this is a war that we have to win' talk during the campaign was empty window-dressing to hide an out-of-the-mainstream worldview."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Has there ever been a president less interested in foreign policy than The One? Does anyone, right or left, think he wouldn't happily take a pass on international issues for four or eight years to concentrate on remaking America's economy in his statist image? His Afghanistan posture was always transparently a sop to centrists, to prove that he was a 'hawk' on some wars even though he was famously a dove on Iraq. Now he senses some public reluctance to invest further in the 'good war' and suddenly he's 'skeptical' about more troops for the counterinsurgency strategy."
• Commentary's Rubin: "Now [Obama] hasn't collapsed yet on Afghanistan. Maybe his spine will stiffen and he'll realize that a confrontation with his military commanders is going to add to and not lessen his political problems. He may want to consider just how ludicrously flighty and weak he would appear if he reversed himself on not one but two major national-security positions. Even if he can't stomach disappointing the left wing of his own party, someone in his administration must surely realize that a second reversal of this magnitude will only cement his image as a Jimmy Carter–esque figure -- weak, irresolute, and easily manipulated -- and invite endless challenges to the U.S. After all, if he's going to back down whenever someone screams loudly, there will be a lot of very loud screaming."
• RedState's haystack: "[W]e DON'T have the right strategy, he HAS sent in more troops, he's being told that wasn't enough, and we stand ready to have defeat snatched from the jaws of victory...AGAIN...because of the whims and fancies of a man and his minions who were never qualified to make National Security and life and death decisions for us..."

AFGHANISTAN II: Are We Doing The Right Thing?

Some liberal bloggers are expressing growing doubts about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan:

• digby: "For me, this one is easy. Afghanistan is the most unlikely place to win a war on the planet. To apply the lessons learned in Iraq (such as they were) to this country seems insane to me --- especially the concept of 'counter-insurgency,' so beloved by the McChrystalites, which is being bizarrely misapplied. [...] Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy. There have been many campaign promises 'adjusted' since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments it has blithely turned aside in the interest of 'pragmatism.'"
• Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "If everybody agrees there is no wholly military solution, why is there a 20-to-1 military-to-civilian budget ratio for Afghanistan operations? Can the U.S. counter-insurgency plan really work without hundreds of thousands of combat troops? After eight years, is U.S. presence more of a problem than a solution, creating more enemies with each air strike that kills civilians? What benchmarks will have to be met before success can be declared? And what's a realistic guessestimate for when the troops can come home? Is it General [David] Petraeus's suggested decade or more? Or British Army Commander General Sir David Richards's 40 years? President Obama has asked the most important question of all. 'Are we doing the right thing?' Most Americans say no."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Glenn Beck Harmful To The Conservative Movement?

Commentary's Peter Wehner:

"...[Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for [TX Rep.] Ron Paul and his charges of American 'imperialism.' (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck's statements -- for example, that President Obama has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people' -- are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger -- the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.

I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now -- and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn't the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on."

LEST WE FORGET: Man Not Belonging To Movie's Target Demographic Escorted From Theater By Hollywood Officials

From The Onion:

"ST. LOUIS -- Hollywood officials removed David Sinclair, 24, from the AMC Esquire 7's 9 p.m. showing of The Time Traveler's Wife Monday for failing to meet the minimum gender, age, and socioeconomic status requirements set forth in new guidelines to ensure marketing is reflected in movie audiences. "Looks like this punk is a little too young and a little too male to be here," said Toby Emmerich, president of New Line Cinema, who spotted Sinclair trying to discretely watch the film from the back of the theater. "Didn't your mother ever teach you that a romantic thriller starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana is for professional women aged 26 to 40 who make between $45,000 and $60,000 a year?" Despite Sinclair's promises that he would buy a Coke and popcorn, officials escorted the single, college-educated city-dweller out of the theater complex and issued him a $1,500 fine."