Via Hot Air Headlines, Tom Brokaw does not understand why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not looming issues in this year's election; or, indeed, really issues at all. He doesn't bother to even try to answer the question, himself - apparently, Brokaw decided that his wordcount was better suited towards the production of ponderous melancholia - but fortunately I'm here to explain things to him.
- The Defense Hawk Right (there is effectively no Defense Hawk Left anymore, by the way, at least among our ruling class: merely a residue of crass opportunists, politicians of negotiable affection, and a very lonely Joe Lieberman) is not bringing up the issue because, well, we won the major elements of the debate and we don't want to push the President unless he goes more wobbly than he already has. Barack Obama's no George W. Bush when it comes to protecting the country, of course; but you have to work with what you have, and right now we're kind of stuck with him. Besides, there's ...
- The Non-Interventionist Right, who are largely staying out of this debate until at least after the election, mostly because they expect to be a strong part of a new, much larger GOP caucus. Even after the election there's going to be quite enough to do with smashing recent progressive domestic policy advances to justify wasting time on pointless internecine squabbling (at least for a while) over a foreign policy that has largely been implemented, anyway. And, again, it'll be more fun to kick around...
- The Progressives, who are not bringing up the wars because it won't win them elections as incumbents, the President is inconveniently Democratic right now, and none of them actually in power ever really gave a... rip... about brown people who don't vote.
I think that covers everybody... oh, wait:
- The Rest of the Democratic Party. They might have cared - vaguely, and in a somewhat pro forma way - except right now they're too busy stocking up on bottled water and canned goods.
Moe Lane (crosspost)