Helene Cooper observes that President Obama's reliance on GOP support for the war in Afghanistan could put him in a precarious spot should they withdraw that support. But what would that look like? I'm not sure that the danger is, as Lindsey Graham says, that some on the right will "do to Obama the same thing the left did to Bush with Iraq." Yes, George Will, Andrew Bacevich, and now Chuck Hagel have, to varying degrees, criticized U.S. policy toward Afghanistan. But judging by the state of Republican discourse these days, it seems unlikely that these paleoconservatives will carry the right's narrative on Afghanistan.
What's far more likely is that hawkish conservatives in congress end up assailing the administration, not for doing too much, but for not doing enough. Suppose Obama approves a troop increase of somewhere between 7,000 and 14,000 (the low-end of what has so far been discussed by members of McChrystal's civilian advisory team) And suppose a year from now Afghanistan is in the same shape it is now, or worse. Its hard to imagine John McCain, John Boehner or anyone else in the conservative leadership doing a 180 and suddenly opposing the war. Instead, conservatives will likely do many liberals did on Iraq in 2004, and argue that the war effort is suffering due to insufficient resources\mismanagement\failure of leadership.
Consider also the political incentives for Republicans to take a pro-war position on Afghanistan. Why, amidst increasing calls for withdraw from the left, and the absence of progress on the battlefield, would opportunistic conservatives refrain from accusing Democrats of being weak on national security? Whatever you think about the actual threat of terrorism from Afghanistan (and Pakistan), invoking that threat is still a pretty useful political tool. Any perceived schism between Obama and the military leadership on the strategy for Afghanistan would also play well with the right. No, it becomes pretty hard to imagine conservatives joining with the anti-war types on this one.
Now, I could see this playing out in a variety of ways. One possibility is that a year from now, the Obama administration, still committed to Afghanistan, but lacking progressive support, is pulled deeper into the conflict by pro-war Republicans. On the other hand, if the situation hasn't improved at all, a new coalition, comprised of progressives and paleoconservatives could give Obama the cover he needs to re-position his policy toward disengagement. Spencer suggests a third possibility, which is that the administration resists both calls for increased escalation and outright withdrawal, with negative consequences to their domestic agenda (and I think, their foreign policy agenda as well). And finally, we shouldn't discount the chance that the administration's strategy could show signs of success, which would give them latitude with both the left and the right.
Because everything in Afghanistan remain so fluid, it's tough to forecast what the political debate will look like in one year's time. But it probably won't be pretty.
Cross-posted on Democracy Arsenal.
Well, where are we now. The Republicans are out of power. There is no Republican president. The Democrats control Congress. There is a Democratic president. Afghanistan has served its purpose as a political tool. It is no longer an artifice; but a reality that must be dealt with. And, the refrain from the Left is starting:
we want out!! bring the troops home!!
We Want Out!! Bring The Troops Home!!
We WAnt OUt!! BRing THe TRoops HOme
WE WANT OUT!! BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!
I can wait to see April 29, 1975 replayed. Long lines of people threading up to the roof top of the CIA in country Headquarters, the helicopter landing, loading, then taking off, and another one landing, loading, then taking off, and another ...
Yup, we are strong. We keep our word. Our allies can trust us to follow through. We would never leave a job half done, and slink away. We are strong, we told you so. Believe our words - not our deeds.
But the truth is we have already let the people of Afghanistan down and failed to protect them. We have already loss any gains we once might have made. Now we are simply an occupying force and no one likes an occupying force.
Just a little tidbit of useless info but somehow it popped into my head.
While they play good cop/ bad cop with domestic policy, we will "Stay the Course" on foreign policy, without a hitch, whether the president is a democrat or republican.
They will continue to run up the debt, so they can justify that social reforms cannot be afforded, while they make direct subsidies to industries, particularly the military.
They will use every conceivable govt reason to allow the affluent to recapture the taxes they paid, being that they pay the majority of taxes - keeping your middle class hands off their money.
However, when it comes to the Pentagon, and their bases all around the globe, and their weapons systems and their plethora of private contractors, the spending just goes up and up and up and up and up and up every single year.
And no one, Republican or Democrat, speaks about trimming it, even a little bit.
Isn't that curious?
I think our president is in a very tough place. The odds of Afghanistan long-term improving is remote. The citizens of the US are sick of spending their money nation building. I still think that Iraq might eventually become a productive heart of the ME, whereas Afghanistan has little chance of that.
What is really going wrong here more than anything is exactly what went wrong with the "other" war with Bush. Obama is as silent as Bush was. Every day we hear another serviceman is dead and nobody says a thing. It is like two silent wars. We are just sending our youth there to endure injuries and possibly death for a gameplan none of us understands. We have been left out of the equation. Something similar to how republicans feel about being shutout of the healthcare debate.
Bush = Obama. Obama = Bush. The only thing that is different now is that Obama admittedly is pro big government whereas Bush would never say that, but his actions said he did in fact support big government. Both ran up deficits and insisted they had no choice. When does a government have the choice to make better decisions?
What was the stat from Vietnam? For the amount of money we spend we could build everyone in the country a 2 bedroom house? How about if we build a clinic and water treatment plant in each village? That might actually help.
But of course they would be blown up shortly after they were built.