Either with us or against us..

It was something Bush said after 9/11, now it's something NATO commanders are saying privately about Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan regarding the Afghan situation:

"It is time for an 'either you are with us or against us' delivered bluntly to Musharraf at the highest political level," an unnamed NATO commander told the British newspaper.

The NATO Supreme Commander in theatre, British General David Richards, will travel to Islamabad in a few days to "talk" with the Paki Prez. Although it's doubtful he'll mention anything about the stone age, this comment is certainly political happy talk:

"It would be entirely inaccurate to describe the visit to Pakistan as a confrontation," NATO civilian representative Mark Laity said.

An AP story is also on the wire this morning quoting General Richards as saying Afghanistan is approaching a "tipping point" where we stand to lose the backing of the people, leading to a Taliban victory. He claims we've got about six months.

Here in America we have a very important election coming up, but I haven't heard either side talk much about this situation. Most of the Democrat rhetoric is focused on what we've done wrong in Iraq, while Afghanistan--the war most of them supported--lies over in the tall grass of ideas. Perhaps that's because it's a NATO operation, or perhaps something else.

C-HAWK MUSINGS 10/9/06

Like other non-military conservatives supporting the Iraq war I've been called a chickenhawk before. Matter of fact, one of the reasons I haven't joined the "Fighting Keyboardists" (not that they'd even have me, and not to belittle the fine bloggers on that team) is because the charge does have some merit.

My retort is intellectually sound--for example, nobody expects a person to withhold criticism or support of a Congressman unless they've served in Congress, likewise with the FBI, Police, Mayor or any other tax-payer funded service. But it's a tad different in a war.

The fact I'm older than enlistment age now really means nothing, since I could have signed up during Desert Storm but didn't. No, the criticism still doesn't change my opinion about the need to remove Saddam, but the argument would hold more weight with a military background that included combat. The "pull back" opinions coming from some of combat veterans in Congress should not be dismissed lightly.

But I can't help but wonder something. If the Democrats win in November and manage to maneuver us out of Iraq, will they push for a transfer of forces to the NATO mission in Afghanistan? After all, most of us agree that chasing UBL and the Taliban is the true "War on Terror", and a Taliban resurgence doesn't sound productive. Let's say it does--I'll continue to be called a chickenhawk, but I'll instantly have more company from the other side of the spectrum.

Rather than falling into that pit I wonder if the next leftist target will become the Afghan war, a "mess made by Bush" that we need to cut and run from. After all, as 9th District Congressional candidate democrat Steve Cohen said in a debate yesterday,

"We need less soldiers on the streets of Baghdad and more cops on the streets of Memphis," he said.