The End of the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan?

Today on NRO DAVID HOROWITZ: The tea-party movement provides an answer to the Left. Why Republicans Need the Tea Party. JONAH GOLDBERG: When entrenched interests face competition, wealth and opportunity can skyrocket. Innovation vs. Regulation. JIM GERAGHTY: The difficulty of beating an opponent who doesn't believe in much of anything. Progressive Chameleons. MACKUBIN THOMAS OWENS: Recessional: Obama's defense budget. Obama Chooses National Decline. ROBERT P. GEORGE & MICHAEL STOKES PAULSEN: Congress should deter Iran's nuclear ambitions by authorizing, now, the president to use military action. Authorize Force Now. Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty February 26, 2014 Oh, CPAC. What Are We Going to Do with You? CPAC just wouldn't be CPAC without some opening controversies, now would it? Here's the scoreboard: Atheists: Previously invited, now disinvited. This was the somewhat surprising news Tuesday morning… American Atheists, an outspoken organization that advocates for atheists nationwide, will have a booth at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference. The atheist institution, which is well known for its controversial billboards and media campaigns, informed CNN of its inclusion on Monday night, and a representative from CPAC confirmed that the group will have a booth at the annual national gathering of conservative leaders and activists in March. American Atheists hopes to use the forum to tap into the conservative movement and bring conservative atheists "out of the closet." And by Tuesday afternoon, CPAC had made the decision that the atheist group wouldn't have a booth after all. Meghan Snyder, a spokeswoman for CPAC, said in a statement to CNN that "American Atheists misrepresented itself about their willingness to engage in positive dialogue and work together to promote limited government." The rescinding of the invitation did not mitigate Brent Bozell's anger, who declared, "no conservative should have anything to do with this conference." GOProud: Technically invited but disallowed from having a booth, an agreement that some former board members find to be a sad joke: One of the founders of GOProud, a gay Republican organization, has resigned from the board after accusing the group's new leadership of allowing themselves to be used as "stooges" by antigay conservatives. Chris Barron, who helped create GOProud in 2009, condemned the current directors for touting an agreement that only allowed for limited GOProud participation at the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference. In 2010 and 2011, GOProud, which bills itself as a conservative alternative to Log Cabin Republicans, served as a CPAC sponsor. But amid a strong pushback from conservatives who complained about the participation of the gay organization, the relationship splintered and GOProud was not invited back in 2012 and 2013. The National Journal reported Wednesday that a compromise was reached to permit GOProud to attend this year's Maryland conference March 6-8, though it would not be a sponsor or have a booth as it had in past years. In an interview Thursday, Barron mocked the agreement, saying nothing had been achieved since GOProud members were allowed in 2012 and 2013 to attend the event though the organization had no official involvement. "It's completely and totally disingenuous to pawn off an unconditional surrender as a 'compromise'" said Barron, who complained that he was not consulted about the decision as a board member. Chris Christie: Attending. I don't mind the invite, but this year's invitation sure does conflict with the explanation for the lack of an invite last year: New Jersey governor Chris Christie was not invited to address the Conservative Political Action Conference because of his position on gun control, according to a source familiar with CPAC's internal deliberations who requested anonymity to speak freely. Christie has a "limited future" in the national Republican party given his position on gun control, the source tells National Review Online. As a result, the CPAC insider says, the focus of this year's conference, "the future of conservatism," made Christie a bad fit. Christie, the source adds, is simply not a conservative in the eyes of organizers. So what's changed since last year? Is Christie now better on Second Amendment issues? Is his future in the national Republican party brighter now? Last year I wrote that the organizers of CPAC should sit down and try to get a clearer sense of what the purpose of the conference is. "Begin with the end in mind," as Stephen Covey wrote. What headline does the American Conservative Union want coming out of three days of events? When attendees go home, they should say, "I'm really glad I went because [blank]." Now fill in the blank. Is it meant to showcase the rising stars of the conservative movement? Or is part of the experience bringing out the "old favorites" like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich? Is it meant to hash out policies, or is it more of a showcase for the most rousing, rah-rah speakers? After news broke that Donald Trump would be speaking, someone I respect declared that his appearance is "fun and entertaining. If anything, we'd be better off with more of that at CPAC and less debates on tax law." I don't know if it's possible for me to disagree more strongly, but then again, I'm not in charge of persuading people to buy tickets to attend this shindig. Kevin Eder: "Obviously, the real purpose of CPAC is to generate outraged headlines and tweets about CPAC." The End of the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan? Some will cheer this news, but it's hard to believe good things will come from it: U.S. President Barack Obama has told the Pentagon to prepare for the possibility that the United States will not leave behind any troops in Afghanistan after its troop drawdown at the end of this year, the White House said on Tuesday. Obama said he had given the order to the Pentagon in a phone call on Tuesday to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has refused to sign a bilateral security agreement that the United States insists it must have before agreeing to leave a contingent of troops behind. Most Americans are sick of dealing with Afghanistan, and it's been obvious that President Obama wants to wash his hands of the whole deal, even long before Robert Gates told us: "The president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his. For him, it's all about getting out." If Karzai won't work out an agreement, maybe we don't have much of a choice. But if a country full of bloody warlords and ruthless tribal factions looks like hell with roughly 38,000 U.S. troops in the country, imagine what it will be like when our guys leave. Jen Rubin, offering one of the grimmer visions: Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is likewise gloomy: "We will likely have civil war in Afghanistan within a year or so. It's reasonable to guess that Ayman az-Zawahiri could even reappear in Jallalabad, which is where bin Ladin landed in '96. This could become excruciatingly surreal and dangerous. Possibly even a greater defeat for the United States than Obama's flight from Iraq and the red-line fiasco in Syria." The danger here is that Afghanistan's central government crumbles, the most dogged Taliban fighters gain the upper hand and back will come the jihadis (although many have found a home in Syria thanks to that Obama foreign policy debacle). Add to that the potential for growing support for the Taliban from the increasingly radicalized Pakistan army and you have a situation that looks remarkably like pre-Sept. 11 Afghanistan. One of the more infuriatingly ignorant arguments of the anti-war crowd is the suggestion that American military presences in places like this create violence, instead of mitigating it. It's as if they've never heard of the Vietnamese Boat People. When U.S. troops leave, they don't leave anti-Colonialist utopias in their wake. Instead, the biggest bully left standing starts consolidating his power through brutality and oppression. In 2013, 9,571 Iraqi civilians were killed in violence, according to Iraqibodycount.org. For the preceding four years, it had been around 5,000 per year. (The last U.S. combat troop left Iraq in December 2011.) Already 1,863 have been killed so far this year. You may recall the news from January that al-Qaeda-allied militants were flying the flag of al-Qaeda in Fallujah and Ramadi. What you may not have heard is that the Iraqi government still hasn't managed to retake control of those cities: Iraq's defence ministry on Saturday announced a 72-hour halt to military operations in the militant-held city of Fallujah, but new violence showed the weeks-long crisis remains far from resolved. The announcement raises the possibility of negotiations to end the crisis, during which gunmen have also seized parts of Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, highlighting both the reach of militants and the weakness of security forces. We can have a less interventionist foreign policy, where we tell the rest of the world that we're tired of sacrificing our own blood and treasure to help a bunch of ingrates; we can tell the world to resolve their differences without us. But that comes at a price. For example, the death toll in Syria's civil war is now more than 140,000. As for that deal with Assad: "The Syrian government has sought a new delay, until mid-May, for the export of its chemical weapons arsenal and is balking at a deadline looming in three weeks to destroy the 12 facilities that once produced the munitions, Western diplomats said Friday." The Difficulty of 'Finding Mr. Righteous' Today My friend Lisa de Pasquale has a new book out, Finding Mr. Righteous. It's a doozy. Deeply personal and brutally honest, Lisa lays out how she learned some hard lessons about love, career, and her spiritual journey from disbelief to belief. It's "chick lit," and as you probably guessed, not what I usually read. Think Bridget Jones crossed with This Town. A lot of her book illuminates the quirks of the modern D.C. dating scene, and it reinforces the sad conclusion that my views and advice on dating and relationships are not merely dated but carbon-dated. Apparently courtship is pretty much kaput, most guys just don't ask girls out, and nobody likes to specify whether they're actually in a relationship anymore: It was a forward for an outing at a nearby winery. Typical. This was how D.C. guys operated. Rather than actually ask a girl out on a date, they would forward an email to a happy hour or some other function. It's not a date invitation, so there's no fear of rejection by the guy. Girls don't know what to do with this passive invitation. Does it mean he wants to go together? Since it's just drinks should I plan for dinner afterwards? I have to go straight from work, so should I wear that wrap dress that accentuates my waist to work? Or should I change at work? But what if I see someone at the happy hour that I saw during the day and they notice I changed into something different? The happy hour email is simply a transfer of anxiety. Another good line: "Joe liked to network, which is D.C.- speak for drinking with people in the same career field as you." Those who are still dating may see themselves in the misadventures; those of us past that stage of life may read this and be spectacularly thankful to be beyond it. Are most of today's young people really terrified of being in an actual, grown-up relationship? When did becoming a married parent in the suburbs turn into this fate to be avoided at all costs? Or is it that in an era of personal iTunes playlists, on-demand television, and everything else in life tailored to our personal preferences, we expect our potential mates to be a perfect match, tailored to our tastes? ADDENDUM: I'm scheduled to return to the panel on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record this evening. Tune in; I'll try to sneak in any updates on the mystery of who stole Byron York's coat from the green room. To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives. Follow Tweet Subscribe Send National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: National Review, Inc. 215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016