Newt Gingrich is way off-base in his criticism of President Obama’s response to the Koran-burning controversy in Afghanistan. The president sent an entirely proper letter of apology for the insensitive actions of American personnel who improperly disposed of Korans in a way that offends Muslim sensitivities. President Karzai responded properly too, criticizing the American actions but then accepting the American apology and trying to tamp down protests which have turned violent. For these actions, both men have gotten a double-barreled blast from the former House speaker and current presidential candidate. Politico quotes him as follows:
“It is an outrage that President Obama is the one apologizing to Afghan President Karzai on the same day two American troops were murdered and four others injured by an Afghan soldier,” the Republican candidate said in a statement. “It is Hamid Karzai who owes the American people an apology, not the other way around.”
The former House speaker continued his attack at a campaign rally in Spokane, Wash., charging that Obama had “surrendered twice” in one day, and demanded that the president request an apology from the Afghan government.
“Candidly, if Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing then we should say good bye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich’s statements are ignorant and irresponsible. Obama deserves plenty of criticism for his actions in Afghanistan, namely his premature drawdown of U.S. forces and cutting funding for the Afghan Security Forces (see, e.g., my Los Angeles Times op-ed today) but not for this. It is hardly a “surrender” to apologize for insensitive actions by American personnel. As for Karzai, I don’t know what he should be apologizing for in Gingrich’s opinion–it’s not as if Karzai applauded the attacks on American troops which resulted from the Koran-burning controversy. In this incident his actions seem to me fairly proper, and the accusation that Karzai doesn’t “care” about the future of his own country is ludicrous.
Overall, Karzai has been a disappointing leader, but U.S. troops are not in Afghanistan as a favor to him–they are there to protect our national interest in not having Afghanistan once again become a safe haven for terrorists. That’s something that Gingrich, for all his background in national security policy, doesn’t seem to get.
I can't speak for Gingrich (nor would I want to even try) but to me, the unintentional treatment of a Koran by US personnel doesn't rise to the level of an offense that warrants the President making an apology. n nBut if you accept the premise that Obama needed to apologize for the actions of US personnel, then why shouldn't Karzai apologize for the actions of Afghans that in any sense of order are far more serious?
Yes, how many American soldiers have to be murdered by crazed lunatic Afghan "allies" before Max Boot realizes that his Afghan nation-building fantasies are not going to work?
If Obama needs to apologize for insensitive actions of US troops shouldn't Karzai have to apologize for murderous actions of Afghan ones? It seems only logical.
Because US military personnel are under the command of President Obama, whereas Taliban criminals are not under the command or control of Karzai.
Why do I get the feeling that if it had been Romney criticizing Obama on this, the tone would be completely different.
If an apology salves Afgahn outrage and saves American lives then Boot is right to say, "The president sent an entirely proper letter of apology for the insensitive actions of American personnel who improperly disposed of Korans in a way that offends Muslim sensitivities." n nThe issue isn't a chest thumping refusal to try to make amends or to insist on a reciprocal apology. It is, again, saving American lives.
if it was supposed to "save American lives," it didn't. because the soldiers were killed AFTER Obama apologized. but that's not the point. n nI really don't have a problem with some sort of apology. but it should have gone like this: n n"We are very sorry for the inadvertent burning of the Koran, and we regret causing any offense. However, jihadists were using the books to transmit messages to each other, putting our servicemen in harm's way. And we will not allow that. Whether we should have disposed of the books in a more sensitive way is a discussion we can have, but one thing is certain: books being burned never equates to people being killed, and we await President Karzai's apology to us for the death of the two American servicemen murdered by rioting fanatics." n nahhh…that was fun writing that.
I'm really disappointed in this post, Max. usually you are right on in your assessments of world politics. but you're WAAAAY off base with this one. n nI dislike Newt intensely, but he was right on about this. why in the world should we apologize at all? let's remember what we're talking about here: a book got burned. a BOOK. our Bibles are burned regularly in the ME; has anyone ever apologized to us? our flag is burned almost daily. apology forthcoming? of course not. n nand has anyone yet apologized for murdering two of our soldiers just because a book was burned? n
I agree 100% with your reply , spot on. Very well said. However I must state that I like Newt immensely , I think hes quite brilliant.
Couldn't agree more. I am NOT a Newt fan, but this is one of those moments that makes you almost reconsider. Max Boot should surely know this "outrage" is a calculated move by the Taliban and their allies to hasten US drawdown and put more pressure on Karzai. More weakness from Obama only serves those ends, not to mention, insults the sacrifice of our troops killed under cover of defending the Koran. As I pointed out yesterday, these materials were already "defiled" by prisoners who used them to hide messages. Stop accepting the enemy's characterizations of events. Thank you Newt.
Totally agree. The real problem is that we have no business being in Afghanistan, spending both blood and treasury defending people who are quite happy living in the 7th century. Withdraw our boots on the ground and if/when Al Quaeda returns use surgical air strikes to take out the bad guys.
you know, I used to think we really should stay and "get the job done." but then I realized, there IS no job. what's the mission? what's the goal? how do we know when we've "won"? n nthat our kids should die for a bunch of fanatics who hate us and are trying to kill our people is just outrageous. I say we do a Saigon-1975 goodbye: "OK, we're leaving now. if anyone wants to come with us and leave this hellhole of goat farmers and pedophiles, grab a seat in a chopper and start learning the words to 'The Star Spangled Banner.' we're out of here."
Let's leave. This society obviously doesn't consider us allies or friends or anything but targets. And the O team ties our soldiers up in Peace Corps missions and apologies. Our mission is now circularly without foundation and conceptually compromised beyond salvation. We are in Afghanistan to prevent the Haqqani network (protected in Pakistan and whom we draw back from fully confronting) from preventing us from staying in Afghanistan to prevent the Haqqani from preventing us from preventing … and so the dog chases its tail. n nOh no no no we are told. Our mission is to build up a peaceful civic Afghanistan. Really? Well that was actually one goal of the Soviets in their murderous elephantine bureaucratic fashion when they went all in and we …. armed the Haqqani. n nInsanity.
I am compelled to belatedly join this almost unanimous outcry in the hope that the message will get across to its target. I am an admirer of Max Boot as a thinker, strategist and military historian. But here he is just plain wrong. (Even the most intelligent of us are occasionally wrong – it may even have happened to me.) n nThose who have commented above have pointed out the intellectual, moral, diplomatic and practical faults in his position. I endorse their comments, and don't need to repeat them. But isn't it clear to all that this path of groveling to moslem extremists will pass over the bodies of literally thousands of Christians, Jews, and just plain American soldiers who are destined to be slaughtered. n nPlease. Mr. Boot, we need your contributions on the right side. Find a quiet place, pour yourself a glass of a really good pinot, and reflect on what you have said.
You would be right were you talking about a Western culture that honors/holds JudeoChristian values. But as to these people — they only recognize strength. n nWhat we view as mercy, they view as cowardice and weakness. Where we view caring for the wounded enemy as a sign of strength, they view it as weakness — they would steal his shoes instead. n nThe Romans understood this, and from them we get the word 'decimate' which is to kill every 10th man. They would do that — kill every tenth to keep the other 9 totally terrified of them. Barbaric, yes, but we are dealing with animals and not people — we are dealing with a culture that does not have what we consider to be human values. n nMacArthur did this to the Japanese — Pax Americana – after World War II — and the Japanese might just as well be considered a Western nation now. He abolished their religion, imposed by force the Western values, and created a nation that is not a threat to anyone today. n nI still say we should have opened up with a .50 cal when they started shooting our guys. nStrength through superior firepower.
Gingrich is absolutely "right on" that Obama should not be doing all this apologizing – the Defense Ministers could have discussed this. It isn't an isolated apology event…he's always bowing and siding with those other than our country making the U.S. and himself look like foos…weak foos at that. We need a president who is proud of America and supportive of our soldiers and all they have contributed to our security and the defense of nations around the world.