War is Over (If You Want It)
"I assume the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have [is] that it continues," Nancy Pelosi replied to a reporter on June 22. A few moments later she declared that "[t]his isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."I'll leave aside whether it's reasonable or accurate say that the war in Afghanistan is over. It's obvious that combat is not over, but we can quibble about the definition of war.
Of course she is just a silly pol, but serious people will not put up with a party that refuses to recognize the realities of the war we are in and which will go on for a very long time. Pelosi is the leader of the House Democrats and she declared a war over that is raging at this very moment with many lives lost this week and others in peril right now. Really, how can you take such a person/party seriously? The frenzy on the left is going to grow louder as they pass into irrelevance, but that is where they are headed.
But if it's true, as Hugh says, that serious people will not put up with a party that refuses to recognize the realities of war, then I must have missed his post on Bush's declaration of the end of major combat operations in Iraq 26 months and 1,570 dead American servicemembers ago. I know it's a gimme, and I know what the response is and why it's different from saying that the war in Afghanistan is over, but still, let's listen to what Bush said, just for kicks: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Huh, what do you know?
Now that the obvious retort is out of the way, how about this one: "[Karzai] also told me that there are now 3 million children going to school in Afghanistan. Right after and during the period of the Taliban and right after the war, the number of children going to school was negligible."
That's Bush in February 2003. As far as I know, for something to happen ("3 million children going to school") after something else ("the war"), that something else must be, as Pelosi put it, over. Otherwise, the first thing wouldn't really be happening after the other thing, but during. Am I right, Hugh?