By Sending More Troops To Afghanistan, Obama Will Enable The GOP's Revival

I believe that Republicans are poised to cement their complete opposition to everything Obama and reap a huge political win by twisting their political principles to oppose further escalation of troops in Afghanistan. Unless, of course, Obama can be convinced not to send more troops.

Obama's decision about whether to send more troops in Afghanistan is expected on December 1st, and he may well be going with an increase of around 30,000 towards a war we don't have a way to win.

We've reached a crucial juncture. More troops to Afghanistan would be a disaster, both over there and politically over here. Can you sign the petition urging Obama to rethink Afghanistan strategy and not send more troops? For every signature we get, CREDO Mobile will generously donate $1 to the blog fellowship that supports Derrick Crowe, a prominent anti-war voice who's been a leader on this issue. (For a bit more about Derrick's work, click here.)

Click here to sign the petition, add your voice, and support Derrick.

Politically, this issue is about to turn on its head. America has a strong anti-interventionist streak, which Republicans lost when George Bush invaded Iraq. A majority of Americans think we should stop sending more troops into Afghanistan. Republicans see an opportunity, a way back to this popular position by opposing Obama, and they're ready to take it. The writing is on the wall.

In the past few months, more and more influential, movement conservatives have come out against Obama's policy or future plans for Afghanistan. They hail from all parts of the party -- moderate and neoconservative -- and from all walks of political life -- pundits to elected officials. What they have in common is a skepticism to the idea that the Afghanistan war is worth more troops.

Here's the rundown:

• Senator Chuck Hagel: "Iraq and Afghanistan Aren't Ours to Win or Lose"
• Former Presidential candidate Fred Thompson: "The war in Afghanistan 'has been lost.'"
• Former talking head Lou Dobbs: "Bring our troops home."
• Conservative columnist George Will in the Washington Post: "Time to get out of Afghanistan"
• Republican Congressman Tim Johnson: "Take immediate steps to begin a responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan."
• Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher: "We owe [the troops] our best judgment, not just an easy answer of sending more military people into a conflict."
• Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra and John Shadegg: "If the Obama administration's priority isn't providing our troops with the tools to do the job and win, we shouldn't be there."
• Conservative columnist Tony Blankley in Humane Events: "The president has three choices: 1) Cut and run, 2) cut and walk or 3) stay and fight with enough troops. Either No. 1 or No. 3 may be justifiable based on hardheaded thinking. No. 2 is an evasion of reality and sinfully would sacrifice American troops for no good purpose."
• Richard N. Haass, Council on Foreign Relations president under Bush Sr. and Jr.: "Defining success down on Afghanistan."
• Conservative columnist Andrew C. McCarthy in the National Review: "Our troops are not in Afghanistan for a social experiment."
• Malou Innocent and Christopher Preble at the CATO Institute: "U.S. Must Narrow Objectives in Afghanistan"

Though the views represented in the list above are not yet mainstream conservative thought, the list is full of influential conservative thinkers who will have a say in how the party moves forward on the issue. And the list is by no means exhaustive.

If Obama isn't careful, Republicans will shortly outflank him on the issue. They'll grab the mantle of non-intervention -- a populist position which has large numbers of supporters in both parties -- and start appealing directly to the majority of Americans who think we should stop sending more troops into Afghanistan, or even start withdrawing.

That's why it's so important progressives stand up on the right side of this issue. Progressives are the anti-war people, and the Democrats should be the anti-war party. Republicans outflanking Democrats on this issue would be disastrous politically as more Americans sour on the war and its leader.

Derrick Crowe has been writing about getting out of Afghanistan for the last three months because of a blog fellowship The Seminal and Brave New Foundation awarded him. We've been fundraising to allow him to continue getting the message out to progressives for another year.

CREDO Mobile has generously offered to give us $1 for every signature they get on their petition calling for President Obama to rethink Afghanistan strategy and not send more troops.

By signing this petition, you do two things: Make your voice heard to the administration and pressure them to do the right thing on the Afghanistan war, and help support a progressive anti-war voice in the blogosphere, Derrick Crowe.

Click here to sign the petition.

Thank you for your support. Hopefully together, we can get Obama on the right side of this issue, if not by his announcement than shortly thereafter, before Republicans step up their opposition and grab back the populist, anti-interventionist mantel they lost when George Bush invaded Iraq.

The course in this war must be changed, for the world's sake, our security's sake, and for to sake of our continued majority in Congress and the Executive branch.

 

Follow Jason Rosenbaum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/j_ro

Comments

[LHB58]

Republican's cannot oppose military intervention anywhere without ceasing to be the Republican Party in it's current form. Isolationism might have been a populist position 60 years ago, but not anymore,

[realpolitic]

We will gain little by staying another three years in Afghanistan. Obama should reap the biggest political win in his life by announcing he will bring the troops home. Americans are so tired of war. What can we accomplish there besides a few more targeted killings of al Qaeda suspects with accidental killlings of villagers? We have been there eight years. Karzai has his own agenda. Let's just recognize our limitations and come home.

[abcedarian0232]

The problem with pulling our troops out would be international desertion. Foreign troops total in Afghanistan are equal to 100,000. The US is one of the main supporters of these troops. If the US were to desert Afghanistan and these troops, we would lose even MORE public support from the international community. Cut and run is, unfortunatly, no longer an option. We need to see it through and rebuild the Afghanistan we tore down.
SSgt Murphy
USAF
104th/131st

[wildedge]

Obama is a Republican in progressive disguise. We need a third party.

[dsws]

The GOP brand is absolutely dependent on tough-guy stances in foreign affairs. If they start saying "our military is a bunch of losers, so let's cut and run", they'll cease to exist as a party.

[Johnniedog]

One can only hope that the Republicans will oppose the troops being sent to Afghanistan. I hope they take an all-out effort to oppose more troops and start saying this is a lost War etc....

This will confuse the Republicans even further than they already are.

[Pleneras]

So the party of surge no longer approves of such strategies on the real war on terror? Says a lot about them and those who backed the invasion of a country (Iraq) who had nothing to do with 9/11. Meanwhile has anyone walked downtown in NY city? Have they noticed something happened several years ago and this country took their deaths and used it to invade for oil? We leave now and once the terrorist camps start sprouting all of you will try to blame our prez for leaving too soon.

[NotStarvingArtist]

If the Republicans take the position you are positing, it will be the height of hypocrisy as they have been screaming that Obama is weak on terror. Dick Cheney has accused him of dithering instead of sending the 40,000 or more troops that General McChrystal asked for. Nevertheless, I fear you are right. The Republicans never shy away from hypocrisy.

[jhamm1]

You're right. He's damned either way, and thus better to be damned whilst doing the right thing, which in this case means instigating a full-scale withdrawal.

[RusStyles]

This is a classic Hobbsonian dilemma. There are cogent arguments to stay, and pullout. No matter what decision O makes, he's going to sustain serious heat from the right flank. And, ffrankly, most people commenting about what Obama should do are devoid of the requisite facts to tender an intelligent opinion. However, I do know one thing, if he does send 30K troops, I best hear how this will make America safer; improve the live of Afghan citizens; goals and timelines, that if not met our troops will return home to their families, and stop being sacrificial lambs. Anything short of this and I'd have to stay home in 2012.

[John Zorabedian]

Republicans will declare the war lost and Obama the one who lost it. The only way Obama can win is to define victory and success and move the military toward that goal. I think he is stuck with only one choice - win the war.

[bighat]

I wonder why President Obama did not fire General McChrystal or whatever his name is for giving speeches not cleared by the President?

Harry Truman fired MacArthur and MacArthur was a very popular war hero.

[bighat]

Americans were all anti Bush. One reason why President Obama won by a landslide. But our President seems to be following many of Bush's policies.

Maybe the Republicans are doing what Americans want by opposing everything Obama.

Where did all of the anti war people go? Why are there no anti war rallies or protests?

Ending the war and bringing the troops home would free up lots of cash and get the bankers off our backs.

Plus can anyone identify what has to happen in Afghanistan for us to call the war a victory. The people of Afghanistan will revert to the way they were whether we leave today or 10 years from today. The future regional dictators will have more money to oppress the people and fight off anyone that interferes with their drug trade as the U.S. military spends lots of cash when they occupy a country

[traceminerals]

Sadly, not all Americans are anti-Bush. Much to my chagrin, most of my family still supports Bush and several of my co-workers still support Bush. Oddly, some of them support him more now than they did before, same with republicans.

Personally, I think Obama and the Dems are in trouble...and they have no one to blame but themselves.

[noaxe397]

Mr Rosenbaum's theory is interesting and one I can understand. The GOP outflanking BO on returning to non-interventionism has historical precedent. JFK outflanked staunch anti communist Nixon on the right to help win in 1960. In other words, JFK went against type (although his was the more interventionist approach.)

The GOP has ALREADY outflanked BO on the issue of the travails and problems of the working man by painting his solutions as ineffective and Washington based and out of touch with average people.

However I disagree with the writer's assessment that the GOP was non-interventionist up until Bush43.

Nixon/Cambodia
Reagan/ Lebanon, Grenada,
Bush 41/ panama, Iraq/Somalia

[Jason Rosenbaum - Huffpost Blogger]

Fair point. Both parties have courted this country's non-interventionists and abandoned them as well.

[BocaMom]

Unfortunately, Obama is already helping the GOP revival by doing nothing about the economy and unemployment. With the war, he is going to be a lame duck after one year.

[minigun]

McCrystal is the best thing going for the Repubs. He's leading Obama by his nose..

[Tim303]

Are you paying attention?

[yankee222]

Obama is the best thing that the GOP has going for it. Failure on every front