Saturday, August 21, 2021

The Buck Stops...Where?


Friends, behold my latest article, which takes Sleepy Joe to task for his attempts to blame -- you guessed it -- Trump for the debacle in Afghanistan.  Sorry, but that dog won't hunt!

Nice Try, Sleepy Joe, But Blaming Trump for Afghanistan is About as Credible as Blaming Him for Hunter's Latest “Masterpiece”

Our recent precipitous, reckless withdrawal from Afghanistan, ordered by Commander-in-Chief (God help us!) Joe Biden, has plunged that country and its miserable inhabitants into utter chaos, left thousands of Americans and Westerners stranded, and confronted Afghan veterans, their loved ones, and the families of the fallen with a harsh reality: all their sacrifices over 20 years of war were futile, given the carelessness with which the Biden Administration has surrendered Afghanistan to our arch-enemies: the Taliban.

The wrongheadedness and the shame of our cut-and-run policy are one thing, though. The desperate scramble by Biden and friends to deflect responsibility for the debacle, and to try to point the finger at President Trump instead, is another, and in its way is an even more egregious affront to decency and common sense.

Biden is claiming that Trump locked us into a retreat from Afghanistan, and he, newly elected, had no choice but to go along with a flawed plan.

Well! The most obvious retort to this self-serving “logic” is that Biden eagerly abandoned almost all of Trump's policies and plans, especially the ones that were working, like the Wall, the remain-in-Mexico policy for aspiring asylum seekers, and the adherence to a degree of fiscal restraint in order to avoid inflation.

“Screw that!” said Sleepy Joe, the instant he took office. He pointed us firmly in the direction of unchecked (and frankly assisted) illegal immigration and madcap spending/runaway inflation without a second thought. We're supposed to believe, though, that Trump's evil plan to “blow up” Afghanistan was somehow written in stone, so poor old Biden couldn't do a thing? Yeah, right!

The truth, as it was admirably laid out in the New York Post by President Trump's DoD Chief of Staff Kash Patel, is that the Trump plan envisioned only a partial withdrawal of U.S. forces and capabilities from Afghanistan, and only in return for the Taliban's adherence to a number of strict conditions.

Biden did not cleave to the Trump policy at all, therefore. He altered it: to a fixed-date, no-strings-attached total forfeiture of American leadership – not to mention honor.

Biden expected, as we all know, that the collapse of the Afghan government, and the victory of the Taliban, would unfold slowly enough that he, the so-called leader of the free world, could enjoy plausible deniability in the catastrophe. He could shrug and say, “Not my rodeo”.

Instead, the speed of events forced Biden to deal aggressively with the fallout – and to redouble his efforts to find someone else to blame. And who better than “Orange Man Bad”, the Dems' go-to boogeyman?

Pathetic. In fact, there may be few things more pathetic than a flailing, inarticulate near-octogenarian politician trying to blame his erstwhile enemies for his own failures and missteps. No wonder the American people are increasingly viewing Biden with a mixture of pity and contempt. No wonder Biden's approval ratings are tumbling to record lows.

If things keep up like this, we might have to re-invade Afghanistan, just to salvage our Fearless Leader's dignity, because we certainly would never do it to protect the Afghan people and ourselves from the onslaught of medieval savagery. Perish the thought!

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.


And here it is at American Greatness: 




In other news, here's an intriguing analysis, by a leftist, of the Dem/progressive movement's increasing tilt towards high-earners.  The middle class, in case you've missed it, is mostly Republican, while the poor and the rich are trending blue.  But, you reflexively object, Dems want to "soak the rich", right?  Well...  It depends on what you mean by "soak", and it depends on what you mean by "rich".  By and large, though, the Dems now eschew class warfare in favor of identity politics.  To put it another way, this ain't your father's, or your grandfather's, Democratic Party! 

And here's something to celebrate: Texas Democrats are ending their walkout from the State House, which means the legislature in the Lone Star State can actually legislate again!  You can expect those "Jim Crow 2.0" election reform measures to pass very soon.  Hard cheese, lefties!


  1. The blame for Afghanistan (and the Iraq 1 and 2 debacles) rests square on the shoulders of both President Bush the elder and President Bush the younger. Had they not invaded those countries in the first place, we would not be in this dilemma right now, period.

  2. Dr. Nick

    I'm wondering how much our military was involved in that "withdrawal plan" for Afghanistan? I'm also wondering what the other countries who sent forces there (Canada, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway etc.) think about all this?

  3. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN AFGHANISTAN (or anywhere else), I am confident that Nancy or Kamala will handle every situation with consummate skill and foresight, in case Joe has to step down, and return to his Delaware Estates. By the way, whatever happened to James Comey? Just asking.

  4. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Biden (as leftist marionette only): " Yeah, I eagerly short circuited ALL Trump policies on principle, I mean, they came from Trump! The consequences of my ( actually my puppeteers') decisions were of no moment to me! Open borders, destruction of US free enterprise providing freedom from the whims of Middle East potentates in our energy needs? Why pish tosh! BUT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S unassailable resolve to leave Afghanistan? How COULD I deny his heartfelt intent?! His conditions, the defiance of which he explained the penalties to a Taliban of which such delicate souls such as I have little comprension? Ooops, I forgot about them!

  5. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Texas continues to exemplify the real America! Should we, of necessity, part company with the leftist captured left coast, New England and NY and the leftist islands along the way, let our Capitol rest in San Antone, surely not in compromised Austin. Big D? Maybe? But Texas for sure!

  6. Looking on the bright side, if possible, is that after 20 years of our people being blown apart by IEDs, and maimed physically and mentally, and with no certain victory in sight, we are finally getting out of a place we should have never been anyway. Not sure why Trump did not do this during his four (4) years in office. He certainly should have, and Biden and his team would not have to handle or mishandle this. That's the real bottom line on all this. We were is one geographic space for five times longer than World War 2, and won nothing that I can see. A Republican put us in that s*t hole, but another Republican should have extricated us from the situation and failed to do so. These are plain facts.

  7. Consider the three Anglo-Afghan Wars of the 19th and early 20th Century. Great Britain's and Russia's attempts to take over that country eventually failed, utterly. Had Bush studied up on it (after all he was a history major in college as I recall, or at least had a minor in it) he might have hesitated to invade the place.

  8. After this Afghanistan withdrawal chaos is over, at least the Opium will be safe for distribution. I'm sure some new deals are being made at this various moment.

  9. Dr.Waddy and Ray from Jack: Correct me if I'm wrong on this: my understanding is that the the 19th century Brits saw Afghanistan only as an avenue for invasion of India from expansive Imperial Russia;it wasthe "Great Game". The Rus never did try for all those warm water ports onthe subcontinent so maybe Brit objectives in Afghanistan were achieved! Ithink the Brits were fairly good at not overextending themselves. Their allowance of Princely States during the Raj saved them alot of sweat. Idoubt the RUS feared British invasion thru Afghanistan; they just WANTED it perhaps, just as they wanted a Siberia no one else wanted. Siberia:Forests? Euroean Russia had more than enough.Natural resources? Hell,Russia was practically pre Iron Age! 18th and 19th century China didn't want it and Japan could hardly imagine it until after 1868. But the Russkies just took it and maybe they sought similar adventure in Afghanistan. Was fear of Islam a factor? Islamic power was concentrated west of Afghanistan and had more direct routes to Russia.

  10. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Oh Gawd no; my grandfather, a pipefitter born in 1900, my father, the same profession born in 1921, would have recoiled in revulsion from today's Dems! Sure, they trusted the FDRs, with good reason but today's Dem supporting leftist aristocrats, who presume the '60s populist cachet but who manifest airy disdain for the by definition "unwashed", who dare for ANY reason to doubt their intent( that is, to take from those who work and give to, among tne truly unfortunate, also to, and affirmatively so, those who disdain productivity), they would have opposed with all their demonstrated organizational might!

  11. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Texas Dem "reps". Who do they represent? As a heretical conservative in a (at least to this very day) vindictively leftist state, I must not not reflexively disdain their recent tactic. Could it serve as an example for those of us in NY who suffer domination by those with whom we consumately disagree and for whom we are unwilling to enact their wish that we depart? Texas: the Dem party of LBJ and his product is not the invasive leftist Dem party of today in overall still real American Texas. I think what the Austinites and their ilk ought to do is be satisfied with their unrepresentative very recent enclaves in Texas and then ... STEP OFF! Nah, I'm not Texan but I'll bet everything that I presumptuously express just here, it may well be what Texas real America believes!

  12. Ray, I don't know much about it, but it's my impression that our Western allies have been very critical of the handling of our Afghan withdrawal. Of course, most of them withdrew their military contingents a long time ago, and it's entirely expected that they would snipe at the U.S. from the sidelines, whenever they feel we're vulnerable...

    Jack, I see you've thought out Civil War II! A new U.S. capital in Texas? Could be! Texas would probably be the lynchpin of the Red States of America, in more ways than one.

    Ray, I disagree that our presence in Afghanistan accomplished nothing. Our departure is clearly forfeiting that which we DID accomplish. I'm pretty sure the people fleeing the Taliban can tell the difference! Anyway, it wasn't primarily a humanitarian mission. It was a mission to prevent Al Qaeda, Russia, China, et al. from using Afghanistan as a base of operations. It was a strategic move. We'll see if our loss there has any significant strategic consequences. Time will tell. But, as Jack suggests, a very small U.S. contigent in Afghanistan -- which hadn't experienced any casualties in a year -- guarnateed that no other country/movement could control the country. A reasonable investment? I say yes.

    Jack, I don't care for elected representatives who throw aside their legislative responsibilities in order to deny the majority a quorum. It's a cheap, anti-democratic tactic, as far as I'm concerned. Might it someday prove useful to conservatives? Theoretically, sure, but it's almost always a desperate expedient of political LOSERS... I advise all conservatives against it.

    And as for the opium, production seems to have thrived under the old Afghan government. There's always a possibility that the Taliban will prove more fastidious... If I were a junkie, I'd be nervous (but then I guess junkies usually are)!

    1. Sorry Dr. Nick, but we should never have been there in the first place. It was an exercise in futility that a lot of good Americans had to pay for with their lives. And think about how much could have been done to improve infrastructure, and health care, and a number of other areas right here in the The United States of America. Instead, multi-billions were spent on propping up a shaky "puppet government" in Kabul.

      Sorry, Dr. Nick, but there are certain places that we need to stay out of. Whoever needs to use the place as a "base of operations" can have it. Hope they can afford it. Nations need to build themselves instead of us attempting to do so, which almost always ends in utter failure.

      Again, Trump should have pulled us out of there totally. He had four years to do so, and now all this is all about is blaming each other for an obviously botched withdrawal.

      Let this adventure in Central Asia be a lesson for us, although frankly I think it might not be, and we will becomes bogged down in other places. For what? To whose benefit?

  13. Dr.Waddy from Jack:I watched excerpts of Cuomo's predictably pedantic and self aggrandizing Farewell Address, a text sure to be enshrined, with the rest of his oratorical compendium. Yeeech! "Enough is too much!". What WILL he do now? Where will he preach? Why should I care?

  14. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Beyond the above I had not intended to belabor the onerous subject of now thankfully former potentate Cuomo. Today's news of his last minute grant of clemency to the getaway driver in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which three officers were killed heralded yet a final act in Cuomo's compassionate crusade for the executive redemption of rightfully punished monsters. Lets retire "the Dukakis Trophy for Outstanding Devotion to Criminals andContempt for their Victims". Cuomo did it glory unsurpassable! This guy will still have to get past the Parole Board and with a glimmer of hope for a return of a hint of common sense in NY government, perhaps the public interest will be yet served, despite Cuomo's penultimate dictatorial pronunciamento.

  15. Ray, I sympathize with your point of view on foreign entanglements. I really do. I would support our COMPLETE withdrawal from all other countries, and the erection of tariff barriers so that we could start to provide for all of our own needs. No country is better situated to be self-sufficient than we are.

    Having said that, I think a non-interventionist USA is a pipe dream. The global establishment and the establishments of both parties will NEVER permit us to become isolationist. What's more, once we stick our noses into a place like Afghanistan, I truly believe we acquire moral obligations to the people we pull into our web, if you will. If I say to an Afghan, "Hey, come fight alongside the U.S. military. Risk your life to build a better Afghanistan. Don't worry about those Taliban monsters breathing down your neck. We Americans have got your back!", and then I decide 20 years later to cut and run, I've misled and betrayed those Afghans. To me, that's deeply dishonorable.

    So, in short, I see both sides of this question, but it seems to me that the only thing we just achieved by withdrawing from Afghanistan was the cheapening of our national credibility and reputation.

    Jack, did you see that Cuomo lost his Emmy? Poor guy. The question of what he does next is an interesting one, I agree. Probably not much, for at least a few months.

  16. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Ahh, an Emmy is nothing to someone who expects to ascend to Mt.Olympus.We all know he haslong harbored a neo Shakespearean perception of his exalted self. No more; his Farewell preroration was his audition for the glorious Pantheon of ancient Greek heroes for whom hubris was both their earthly downtall and their ticket to immortality! See, I have him all figured out!