You're welcome to read for free, but you can chip in for the cost of the newsletter by clicking here and filling in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link lets you use a credit card. If you have trouble, let me know. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, last four phone digits are 9479).

Friends,

Entering into open-ended military conflicts without clear objectives and measures of success is a recipe for failure and tragedy. We did not learn that lesson in Vietnam or Iraq, and we--or more precisely, our friends and allies in Afghanistan--are paying the price. We might have been right to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 had our objective been limited to degrading al Qaeda and hunting bin Laden (there was never a legitimate reason to invade Iraq), but we entered Afghanistan without a clear mission and we stayed long after we should have left. President Trump was right to negotiate our departure with the Taliban, and President Biden was right not to reverse one of Trump's few good decisons.

Sometimes there are no good options; only least bad options. There are limits to American power. Nation-building is beyond our capabilities. We must do good in the world, but we cannot right every wrong. Biden was right: The choice he faced was "either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, lurching into the third decade of conflict." He was right not to make the "mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces."

And no, our withdrawal will not hurt our credibility. David Silverberg writes that "the United States has spent billions of taxpayer dollars, fought for more than 20 years, and suffered thousands of casualties in this war. If that sort of commitment lacks credibility, our allies will never believe we are doing enough."

But we have a responsibility to rescue those who helped us and those whose lives our withdrawal imperils. Biden's three predecessors bear responsibility for the conduct of the war, but only Biden bears responsibility for those now at risk for allying themselves with us. Several members of Congress from Illinois signed a letter to the Administration stressing that “it is this Administration’s moral obligation to leverage all available resources to help as many people as possible [in Afghanistan] to safety in the United States. There is no time to waste.”

The Administration should cut as much red tape as it can and commit the necessary resources to rescue as many people as possible from Afghanistan. If other countries, won't take them, we should bring them here. We can screen them once they are out of Afghanistan. Life will be awful under Taliban rule once we leave. It would have been awful had we not invaded. But we did invade, and we owe those who helped us the decency of helping them find refuge.

Any mass evacuation from a country like Afghanistan would be--and would appear--chaotic. We are right to be concerned about the fate of friends and allies, but the Biden administration will--and should--be judged by the extent it succeeds in rescuing them and whether reasons for lack of success are justified--not on TV images, snap judgments, or optics. As Alon Pinkus writes, "the optics of the British evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940, the U.S. evacuation of Vietnam in 1975 and Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 were also really bad. But they were all necessary and good decisions."

We will know soon enough how well the Biden administration did with the evacuation, what was avoidable and what wasn't, and what he knew and when he knew it. Until then, we need to focus on ensuring that as many people as possible are safely evacuated and, if necessary, given refuge in the U.S. Until then, review Jennifer Rubin's primer on false narratives about Afghanistan before drawing any conclusions.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the only member of Congress who voted against invading Afghanistan. Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK) were the only senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which got us into Vietnam. The House unanimously supported the resolution.

The honor roll of those who opposed the Iraq War is longer, but only a small minority of Congress (and includes three Illinois members still in office: Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, and Rep. Bobby Rush). All three wars began with overwhelming bipartisan support, vague objectives, and no expiration date. Remember that the next time someone tells you that "bipartisanship" should be used for evaluating policy.

President Biden meets with Prime Minister Bennett next week. The White House said that "Bennett’s visit will strengthen the enduring partnership between the United States and Israel, reflect the deep ties between our governments and our people, and underscore the United States’ unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.

Can Illinois have its ice cream and eat it too? Illinois is one of the states with laws that require its pension funds to divest from holdings in companies that boycott Israel or territories controlled by Israel. At this point, I have seen no evidence that divestment by any Illinois pension funds would have much, if any, economic impact on Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry's. But that won't stop the political theater.

One can oppose boycotts of settlements generally, as I do, disagree with Ben & Jerry's decision, as I do, and recognize that their decision is neither antisemitic, anti-Israel (although it is anti a specific Israeli policy), nor an example of BDS.

Marilyn Katz wrote last week that "the idea that Illinois would invite derision—to say nothing of lawsuits—by officially demanding that a company sell a product anywhere, let alone in illegal places in a land occupied by an army, would usually be laughable. At a moment when the state, like the city and country, are rightly consumed with real life-and-death issues, the demand is outrageous."

Other states should take note. As Eva Seligman-Kennard reminds us, "the overreaction to Ben & Jerry’s does exactly what the pro-BDS, anti-Israel crowd desires: It blurs the line between the legitimate State of Israel and the Occupied Territories." 

Wither democracy? In the science fiction movies I watched as a kid, the nations of the world would unite against invaders from outer space, putting aside their differences and recognizing their shared humanity. After watching Republicans discourage vaccinations and masking (a recent Monmouth University poll found that “among those who admit they will not get the vaccine if they can avoid it, 70 percent either identify with or lean toward the Republican Party while just 6 percent align with the Democrats"), watching Republicans support the insurrection on January 6, and watching Republicans deny climate science and refuse to fight climate change that threatens the entire planet, I wonder if our Republican friends would side with the invaders if the invaders promised tax cuts or walked out of their spacecraft wearing white hoods.

Republicans are undermining our democracy by passing as many voting restrictions at the state level as possible, aimed at suppressing as many minority votes as possible, but when nearly half the country votes for Donald Trump twice, one wonders if democracy is even a workable form of government anymore, especially in the face of our inability to rally the country against these existential threats. But we have no better alternative. It's up to us to keep fighting for what we know is right.

College students will face more than exams this year at school. If you want to help students successfully advocate for Israel, don't send them silly talking points that elide the real issues and that will set them up for failure. Instead, send them this from Heart of a Nation, and encourage them to click the links.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Human Rights Watch accuses Hamas of war crimes.

Tweets of the Week. David Grossman and Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA).

Video Clips of the Week. Vaccine sommelier, and this for those too young or too old to recognize how clever today's subject line is.

Upcoming Events. Politics with Dana Gordon and Steve Sheffey is back to live events. Join us outdoors in Highland Park, Illinois, on Sunday, September 12, at 3:00pm CT for a special event with Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY). Torres is progressive, pro-Israel, and a rising star in Congress. Contributions are encouraged but not required. Vaccinations are absolutely required. RSVP here if you want to attend. This event will be entirely off the record and closed to press.

I guess this is a good problem to have: This list is now so large that while many people are local, even more live outside the Chicago area and have no interest in local news. If you want to be on a list that will receive infrequent newsletters about local issues and events, reply to this email and I'll add you.

Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here. 

Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link allows you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box). Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four 9479) is fine too.

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print: This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. If you receive it as an ICYMI on Wednesday it's because you didn't open the one sent on Sunday. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. I am willing to sacrifice intellectual consistency for intellectual honesty. Smart, well-informed people may disagree with me; read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot any inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. © 2021 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.