When "Withdrawal" Means Escalation

I’m repeatedly surprised when I come across so-called “antiwar” activists that are ecstatic about Obama taking office.  After talking to them for a bit, the subject of Afghanistan always comes up.  In short, this is pretty much how the conversation goes:

ME:  Well, I’m antiwar, so there’s no way I could’ve supported Obama in this election – just as I couldn’t support McCain.

THEM:  But, Obama is against the war!

ME:  What about all the military bases the US government has around the world, and hey – what about that escalation plan Obama has for Afghanistan? That’s not antiwar!

THEM: Obama’s definitely antiwar, that’s why he’s going to pull the troops out of Iraq, and finish the job in Afghanistan.

So, in my view, that’s what is becoming of the “antiwar” movement in the U.S. these days.  NewsHoggers had a great post recently about how “withdrawal” might be little more than rhetoric.  Here’s an excerpt:

When is a withdrawal not a withdrawal? Apparently, when it’s conducted by the Obama administration’s “bipartisan” hangovers.

I know I mentioned this earlier, but it deserves more examination. This Sunday,Joe Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that a NY Times report alleging U.S. military commanders argued at Biden’s national security meeting this week that they could not meet the 16-month U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq deadline called for by Obama was false.

But on Charlie Rose midweek, Bob Gates was clear that withdrawal doesn’t mean withdrawal, not by a long chalk.

Read the rest

What’s to come?  Only time will tell.  But, I sure won’t be surprised if all those anti-war democrats out there suddenly become rabid supporters of death and destruction in places like Afghanistan, Iran…and elsewhere.