You are using an outdated browser.
Please upgrade your browser
and improve your visit to our site.

Would Would Saul Alinsky Do in Afghanistan?

Apparently, send 30,000 more troops, says National Review house conspiracy theorist Andy McCarthy:

If you accept, as I do, the premise that President Obama is an Alinskyite, last night’s speech was totally predictable. From 2003 forward, he and his party cynically raised the Afghanistan mission into a noble calling — not because they thought it really was one, but because it made their political attack on the war in Iraq more effective. Now, Obama is cratering in the polls and his party is in even worse shape. Politically, they can’t afford to abandon the noble calling at this point: Even the legacy media couldn’t protect them from the fallout, which would intensify when the Taliban overran Karzai right as we headed into our midterm elections next year.

So we can’t leave, but we can’t wage war either. The Obama Left can tolerate, barely, the appearance of waging war if that’s what it takes to prevent rank-and-file Democrats from revolting. But they have no interest in defeating anti-American Muslims (who, after all, have a point, right?) or in pursuing American interests for their own sake.

When you're arguing that President Obama is an ultra-left anti-American radical, and your analysis has no trouble assimilating Obama's decision to double George W. Bush's troop level in Afghanistan, that's pretty much the dictionary definition of a non-falsifiable theory.