An Early Halloween: Cheney Returns

To say that former Vice-President Dick "Torture is Fine By Me" Cheney’s remarks about President Barack Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan were pathetic would be to stretch the bounds of human sympathy. Mr. Cheney has a pension which is as much sympathy as he deserves, perhaps more. For seven and one-half years of the Bush-Cheney years after September 11, 2001, the focus of American arms and diplomacy was Iraq not Afghanistan, and largely because Mr. Cheney wished it to be so. Now, having ignored Afghanistan for so long, he has the gall to criticize President Obama for taking his time, trying to figure out what the hell is going on in that part of the world.

The issues in Afghanistan are grave in the extreme. For starters, it is not at all clear that there is a legitimate government in Kabul with which we can work. President Karzai, who was once the very epitome of Islamic moderation, has let his regime descend in to the all too familiar rut of corruption and mismanagement. The recent elections were marred by all manner of shenanigans and the President’s brother is reportedly up to his eyeballs in the opium trade. In short, there are no longer any good options in Afghanistan.


Against this backdrop, President Obama is trying to devise a strategy that is worthy of the brave American and NATO soldiers called to implement that strategy. Cheney dismissed this process of considering options, analyzing intelligence, and hearing from experts with conflicting opinions as "dithering." If only Cheney and the President he served had dithered a bit longer about Iraq, but in their different ways, neither Bush nor Cheney showed much in the way of patience for clashing opinions.

Last night, I watched Frank Gaffney, whose organization - the Center for Security Policy - sponsored the Cheney speech, defend the speech and the award they gave to Cheney. (They also gave an award to convicted felon Scooter "Where’s My Pardon?" Libby.) Gaffney told Ron Reagan that his father would be ashamed of him, which was an odd charge seeing as the deceased conservative icon, his protestations on behalf of the American family notwithstanding, and his children did not have the kind of close relationship that might breed a sentiment so strong as shame. That said, Reagan the younger is obnoxious in the way only a talk-radio host can be obnoxious.

But, what really shocked was the articulation of a new neo-con mantra: Who lost Afghanistan? This, of course, is an update of an old mantra: Who lost China? Both mantras suffer from a cultural myopia about the centrality of U.S. policy to human history. Chiang Kai-Shek and his corrupt regime "lost" China just as Hamid Karzai and his corrupt regime are in danger of "losing" Afghanistan. No amount of U.S. intervention would have kept the Chinese Communists from gaining control over their own country. The question facing President Obama is similar: Will any amount of U.S. force keep the Taliban from re-gaining control over large swaths of Afghanistan? To the extent that this is still a question it is because Cheney and his friends took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan these many years. His credibility on the subject is zilch.

There is a purpose to the neo-con "Who lost Afghanistan?" mantra and it has nothing to do with the Taliban. It has to do with the desire to make the President appear powerless or feckless or both, which has obvious partisan purposes. Of course, these neo-cons are also the ones who were quick to charge those who disagreed with them with aiding and abetting the enemies of America. Which is it? Depends on whether their guy is in the White House or not. They are shameless as well as clueless. The only good thing to be said about Cheney’s speech is that by reminding the nation of his own tenure, I suspect he gives congressional Democrats a leg up in next year’s mid-terms. Whatever anyone’s doubts about the policies of the Obama administration, nothing would be worse than a return to Bush-Cheney.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Helena Loflin
8 years 12 months ago
Neo-con chicken hawks are themselves devoid of shame.  They are the "Double Highs" (high Social Dominance; high RWA) of Right-Wing Authoritarian research.  Even though they seem so religious, Double Highs do not even use a moral compass.  Hypocrisy is their middle name.  Bush2, Cheney and Gaffney, along with Wolfowitz, Pearl and Rumsfeld, all fit the bill.  Cheney's five, or was it six, deferments, coupled with his "my way or the highway" hawkishness, make him a classic hypocritical Double High.  I guess you could say he "dithered" over whether or not to serve his country in the 1960s.  And then, there's Bush2's version of a famous statement at the Gridiron Club Dinner held in March 2001: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."  Despite the nature of the Gridiron Club Dinner, it's hard to find evidence that Bush2 doesn't truly believe what he said.  Early Halloween indeed!  And, from the neo-con chicken hawks, it's nothing but tricks. 
Joshua DeCuir
8 years 12 months ago
Does America Magazine, and this blog, even make a laughable attempt anymore to seriously represent conservative opinions, or has it become (yet another) ideological shill?  Seriously, I started reading this blog because I hoped it avoided the left-right ideological lens prevalent on so many others, but am increasingly dismayed and discouraged by its ''NCNA'' attitude: No Conservatives Need Apply.
I didn't even bother to comment on yesterday's Supreme Court post since it appeared to be a spleenful of something aimed at judicial conservatives.  Sad.
Beth Cioffoletti
8 years 11 months ago
There is a reason why America magazine is the weekly Catholic magazine with the largest readership (is that a word?).  They air and listen to all sides of an issue.  If you don't agree, your dissent is respected and genuinely valued.


The latest from america

James K. A. Smith has spent much of his energy thinking about alternative communities and the politics of Jesus—about what role Christians should play in the American political project.
Patrick Gilger, S.J.October 18, 2018
While recommitting to help, L.I.R.S. and the U.S. bishops called on the Trump administration to “commit to immigration policies that are humane and uphold each individual’s human dignity.”
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 17, 2018
Caroline McClain, 16, sits on the ruins of her family's Mexico Beach vacation home after Hurricane Michael. Photo by Atena Sherry.
Human-driven climate change is intensifying tropical cyclones across the globe, climatologists say, but the role it played in the tragedy at Mexico Beach is both subtle and surprising.
Mario ArizaOctober 17, 2018
Our faith tells us that Christ chose to suffer on our behalf and that when we choose to do the same, in the service of others, we imitate Jesus in our own lives.
Terrance KleinOctober 17, 2018