How George W. Bush could end the war in Afghanistan

This past week, a number of principled liberal senators including Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, Jim Webb (D) of Virginia and Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont have offered criticism of the progress in Afghanistan.

This shows a strength of character among Democrats on which new leadership can be built. It separates the sheep from the goats. And in a strong and direct essay in The Washington Post, the most influential conservative commentator, George Will, has called for the removal of American troops in Afghanistan. But there is perhaps only one person who could end the war in Afghanistan today: George W. Bush.

The recent election in Afghanistan was a farce. There are no definable objectives on the ground or on the horizon, and the familiar reassuring and paternalistic optimism by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen suggest none are about to materialize. We can remain there for decades, but by the 2012 election it could begin to unravel America as the war in Vietnam did. Now may be the only window of opportunity.

Recently, Dick Cheney has spoken out against Bush. The Guardian reported that Cheney's disgruntlement was that he thought Bush had gone soft in the last years of his presidency, as he veered away from the "you are with us or you are against us" approach following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

In the last days of his administration, Bush halted the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, closed secret CIA prisons, sought congressional approval for domestic surveillance and put out feelers to Iran and North Korea, governments he previously denounced as part of the "axis of evil.”

Maybe W could end the war. Throughout his tenure it was widely thought that Cheney was actually running the show. Cheney’s allegations today make it clear that he was not. Bush should not let Cheney have the last word in this. He has made his own pilgrim’s progress in the world. And as one who opposed the invasion of Iraq from day one and did not stop until Gates replaced Rumsfeld, I always felt that George W. Bush was principled in his decisions. That was the problem. They were simply based on principles different from my own. He seemed to be headstrong. He’d do whatever he thought was right, and nothing would hold him back. In time he will be remembered for that. Now is the time again for direct and headstrong action, and it is not forthcoming from the Obama administration.

We have achieved our goals of the post-9/11 invasion. Policy has now drifted well beyond any conceivable original objectives. It might have been better to go first into Afghanistan, but that is water under the bridge. Vociferous voices like Cheney’s would still have us wandering in the jungles in Laos and Vietnam. They would send us back to retake India and Indochina on behalf of our European allies. Let’s face up: Our primary objectives in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else it led and will lead were to avenge 9/11. On one very fundamental level there may be nothing really wrong with that.

But the time for war is over. Good hearing that from Will, who fiercely defended the invasion of Iraq. Would be better still hearing it from John McCain, and it would immediately formalize direction for Republicans in 2010 and 2012. Cheney is and always has been a coat-carrier to betters. A Yale flunk-out and five-time draft-evader, a warmonger who never served his country in uniform, he has long cast a shadow on the Republican Party. It is inappropriate for him to speak out today in opposition to his boss, but it comes as no surprise. But if he must, let’s hear from Bush as well.

If George W. Bush spoke out today in opposition to Afghanistan, as Will did, it may stop the runaway train.

Visit Mr. Quigley's website at http://quigleyblog.blogspot.com.