Another GOP Presidential Candidate Questions the War in Afghanistan

|

The number of GOP presidential contenders who are not absolutely gung-ho about the war in Afghanistan grew by one this morning. Former Utah Governor/ambassador to China/prog-rock keyboardist Jon Huntsman questioned the quagmire during an interview with Good Morning America:

George Stephanopoulos: You also said, in the event, that a draw-down in Afghanistan is inevitable. So would you begin it today?

Jon Huntsman: I would tell you that we have to evaluate very carefully our presence in Afghanistan. And my inclination would be to say that it is a heavy and very expensive presence we have on the ground. That at a point in time where we need to be looking at our asymmetrical threats, what we have in Afghanistan today is not consistent with how we ought to be responding.

Huntsman's reticence puts him in the company of Representative Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson, who both want to bring our boys and girls home tomorrow, and former restaurant executive Herman Cain, who says he doesn't "understand the mission" in Afghanistan. Matthew Yglesias points out that Huntsman is also opposed to our new foreign adventure in Libya, and concludes

Hopefully Huntsman's decision to inject a traditional realist perspective into the debate and argue from a progressive perspective against the wastage of funds on military pursuits at a time of fiscal austerity will widen the range of perspectives under consideration in Washington.

That war is stupidly expensive is no more the best argument for warring less than the fact that deficits threaten our economic stability is the best argument for government doing less, but it is a good enough argument for the increasing number of Americans who aren't committed to Afghanistan one way or the other, and one that's safe for conservatives to make in the company of other conservatives now that Osama bin Laden is dead.

NEXT: Obama Courts Old Republican Church Ladies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s Michelle Bachmann’s position on the War in Afghanistan?

  2. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

    Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

  3. Dear Squirrels:

    Can we get some more videos and other useless frippery crammed onto this site? The main page was almost completely loaded by the time I got back from eating my breakfast.

    You’re slipping.

    1. giving ReasonTV it’s own page would be, like, work. Man.

    2. Something amiss with the servers today, I reckon.

  4. It should be noted though, that Huntsman is coming at this from a significantly different view than either Paul or Johnson (or anybody else that would be called a ‘paleocon’ like Buchannan, Larison, etc); rather, Huntsman is looking at this from a prespective more like, for example, Joe Biden’s.

    1. Huntsman is looking at this from a prespective more like, for example, Joe Biden’s.

      So Huntsman is coming at this from the perspective of an unrepentant asshole?

      1. Perhaps. 🙂 All I’m saying is that the ‘realist’ point of view for getting the boots out of Afghanistan -but keeping, for instance, the flying killer robots – is one that I think is shared by Biden and Huntsman (afaict), (and me more or less) but of course, not Johnson or Paul. (and I’m not ruling out that the latter two may be right after all)

        1. I’d like to go on record as giving blanket approval for flying killer robots in all circumstances, in all situations.

          1. I’d like to go on record as giving blanket approval for flying killer robots in all circumstances, in all situations.

            Only if they’re completely autonomous.

  5. Actually, I see the “Marine Killed by SWAT” story is still in the Google News “spotlight” section. Hopefully, people are reading it in numbers sufficient to mimic a denial-of-service attack. And, hopefully, they are having a consequent WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY? moment.

    That would be okay.

  6. I wonder: How long will it will take for Max to accuse Jon Huntsman of being a racist, homophobic Bircher?

    1. Keep sucking Ron Paul’s cock, you stupid libertoid asshole freedom hating bushpig christfag something something…oh shit, I give up. It’s hard to spoof him.

      1. That’s Ron Pual, from the 11th district in Hawaii.

  7. It’s hard to spoof him.

    Just remember; people donating of their own free will to the reason Foundation is proof the free market has failed.

  8. Good luck running for the GOP nomination as an Obama administration official, Huntsman. Even Romney doesn’t have that burden to carry.

    1. He was an ambassador to China though. It isn’t as though he assisted Obama in passing Obamacare or something. Having a former ambassador to China as President could have many advantages actually, given the fact that we have a HUGE debt to them. Also, he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

      1. Yeah, but do the little yellow devils like him? If not, that job could be a ria….ria…riabirity.

        1. Fucking spoof handles.

    2. Good luck running for the GOP nomination as an Obama administration official, Huntsman.

      Not really. He said he did it because he felt it was his duty to serve there when called by the president, whoever that president was. It wasn’t a Team Blue moment — more of a “I’m a Mormon and when I’m extended a calling, I accept it” moment.

      It’s not like he endorsed some idiotic policy like Romneycare.

  9. Even a lot of conservatives are having war fatigue. I personally favored invading Afghanastan. We had a reason, a goal. What exactly is that goal now? Overthrow Taliban – Check! Install semi-friendly government – Check! Find and Kill Bin Laden – Check! Ok, what are we there for NOW? Is it to have a staging area to hunt more terrorists in Pakistan? Can’t we just use a tactical nuke instead? I have quite a few USMC friends (big base nearby) and they are asking the “Why the fuck are we still there?” question more and more. We get sick of seeing this on the news. They are sick of having their lives taken or at the very least disrupted for this decade long war/kinetic military action/conflict/?.

    P.S. It seems as if Huntsman is instantly considered a more ‘serious’ candidate than Paul or Johnson. Jon who?

    1. He doesn’t really threaten to overturn the prevailing bullshit paradigm like they do, so he’s a “serious” candidate. Serious meaning he doesn’t have real ideas about solving problems, just more of the same nonsense that got us here in the first place.

      1. he (Huntsman) doesn’t have real ideas about solving problems, just more of the same nonsense that got us here in the first place.

        Agreed, and that’s why you’ll see more and more of him.

        1. Yeah him and Pawlenty, whom I already hate with a passion for precisely that reason.

    2. I want to agree with you, but the US already did pull out of one Afghan province and AQ camps were up and running in no time until the US bombed them (this also makes me seriously question the ‘only 100 AQ in Afghanistan’ talking point). I don’t want to stay there forever but I also don’t accept AQ training camps.

      1. I also don’t accept AQ training camps.

        See “Flying killer robots” above.

  10. We won in Afghanistan:
    ~overthrew the Taliban
    ~provided a framework for elections (in a warlord system even)
    ~SEALed bin Laden.

    If this isn’t the time to leave….

    1. We’re still in Japan.
      We’re still protecting western europe from a (non-existant) Soviet invasion.
      We’re still protecting rich S. Korea from So-Fucked-people-flee-to-china N. Korea.

      If these are indication, then we should be in Afghan/Iraq at least until 2060 or so.

  11. and argue from a progressive perspective against the wastage of funds on military pursuits at a time of fiscal austerity

    A progressive perspective?!?!

    Yglesias is such a fucking unbearable Critical Theory d-bag.

    When has cutting military adventurism to balance the budget ever been a pillar of left wing thinking?

    1. In fact last i checked Keynesian economic theory is based on the distorted observation and assumption that WW2 war spending ended the depression.

  12. “That war is stupidly expensive is no more the best argument for warring less than the fact that deficits threaten our economic stability is the best argument for government doing less, but it is a good enough argument for the increasing number of Americans who aren’t committed to Afghanistan one way or the other, and one that’s safe for conservatives to make”

    The art of practical gadflying is often no more than coming up with excuses that allow people to do the right thing.

  13. The best way to support our troops is to stop sending them into unnecessary and un-winnable wars, with no clear strategy, ridiculous Rules Of Engagement, and no clear exit strategy or even a recognizable objective. The Corporatist strategy of war (both Republicrat and Demopublican) is to protect American and internationalist financial interests first, last and always.

    There’s nothing wrong with Capitalism. Our country was built on, grew and thrived on it. What is killing this country is Crony Capitalism- where the government is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bankster Elite, and exists solely to enrich, empower and maintain the directed monopoly on power. We are rapidly becoming the world’s largest Banana Republic (The Corporate Statist Oligarchy- not the yuppie clothing store). Laws are applied selectively, or not at all if you have enough influence, power and money. The people are either bought off, numbed into sheeplehood, intimidated or fooled into fighting amongst themselves with faulty Rich vs. Poor, Left vs. Right, Race vs. Race and other arguments ad infinitum.

    The vast silent majority of Americans who only desire the freedom to earn a living without the fruits of their labors being confiscated so the Government can give them to a third-world dictator who, in turn, uses that money to buy weapons and influence in America- usually to fight another Third-world dictator doing the same thing. Chaos reigns, Americans are poorer and the Banksters, Industrialists and Bureaucrats enrich themselves.

    I have a son going to Afghanistan later this year. I would hope the American People realize why they have called that country ‘The Graveyard of Empires’ since the days of Alexander the Great, and bring our troops home form the deadly, costly quagmire that only serves the interests of the Military Industrial Bankster Junta that is ACTUALLY ruling this country, and NOT the interests of the American people.

  14. …a 10% war-surcharge tax on the wealthy earners of $39,000 gross and above to finance his necessary wars — he could do it by presidential order, free from the restrictive shackles of the naysayers in Congress.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.