Today in conservative media: unpacking Trump's Afghanistan plan

Today in Conservative Media: Unpacking Trump’s Afghanistan Plan

Today in Conservative Media: Unpacking Trump’s Afghanistan Plan

The Slatest has moved! You can find new stories here.
The Slatest
Your News Companion
Aug. 22 2017 7:52 PM

Today in Conservative Media: Unpacking Trump’s Afghanistan Plan

US President Donald Trump speaks during his address to the nation from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall in Arlington, Virginia, on August 21, 2017.

AFP/Getty Images


A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.

On Tuesday, conservatives assessed both Trump’s Afghanistan speech and the wisdom of continuing the war there. At National Review, Quin Hillyer applauded Trump’s speech. “If Barack Obama had made the sorts of decisions about the war in Afghanistan, or the one in Iraq, that Donald Trump outlined tonight, we might already have achieved stability in both countries,” he wrote. “It sounds as if Trump is actually letting experienced military leaders use their good judgment to craft war-fighting strategies on both the macro and micro levels. Good for him. And good for him for listening to them even though he has been saying for at least six years that the United States should pull out completely from Afghanistan.”


At the American Conservative, Daniel Larison condemned Trump for succumbing to war hawks:

Unless the U.S. intends to make Afghanistan its permanent ward and wishes to be at war there forever, there is no compelling reason for a continued American military presence. Nothing in Trump’s speech provided such a reason. He embraced the sunk cost fallacy (“our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made”), and ignored that throwing away more lives on a failed war is far worse than cutting our losses.
[...]Trump defined victory as “attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.” Based on this definition, victory is not possible at an acceptable cost. The preoccupation with “winning” an unwinnable war just dooms the U.S. to fight there for decades to come. If we can’t admit failure after sixteen years of it, when will we?

On Fox & Friends, LifeZette’s Laura Ingraham praised Trump’s speech while casting doubt on the prospects of a troop surge’s success.

“The question is, ‘What does victory ultimately look like?,” she said. “How do we continue to keep the American people supportive of this war effort that is now in its 17th year --17 years, 2,500 lives, almost a trillion dollars. It was the Soviet Union’s graveyard. I don’t think Americans want it to be our graveyard. But I think he gave a great speech.”

In other news:

Multiple outlets published posts on a list of demands for white people published by a member of Black Lives Matter Louisville named Chanelle Helm. “White people are asked, ‘Give up the home you own to a black or brown family,’ pass on any inherited property ‘to a black or brown family,’ or ‘re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing,’" Breitbart’s Jerome Hudson wrote. “She concludes, ‘Commit to two things: Fighting white supremacy where and how you can (this doesn’t mean taking up knitting, unless you’re making scarves for black and brown kids in need), and funding black and brown people and their work.’ ”

“Helm also references ‘lil’ dick-white men’ associated with the alt-right and tells other whites to, ‘Get they ass fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious,’ ” the Daily Caller’s Justin Caruso noted. “This list of requests may seem strange, but it fits an increasingly common thread among left-wing activists, many of whom insist that the only way to properly address historical racism is through reparations.”