What It Might Look Like If the Bottom Drops Out on Afghanistan

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.

Comments

[sc300nc]

Could it be that Bush had the right approach? A minimal force in Afghanistan just enough to react to intelligence and take advantage with deadly strikes? The only major victory Obama could gain from this is if BinLaden was actually located and killed. Everything else has a big downside since history has shown that Afghanistan is a b*tch to conquer.

[Fez]

Somewhere in Afghanistan is an obelisk with names of the following countries engraved on it: Macedonia (Alexander the Great), Great Britain, Turkey, and Russia. Right now, someone is engraving the name of the United States on this obelisk. No country has ever been successful in a war in Afghanistan. The US is just the latest in a long line of countries that have blundered into a tribal culture that is built on war. Afghans grow some fruit, opium poppies, and marijuana and not much of anything else. They have been hardened by more than 2000 years of combat and nothing the US can do will come anywhere close to "winning." The US should pull out of Afghanistan and focus on the Northwest Territories in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda are holed up.

[ThesagaciousOne]

I can agree with that, However, the Democratric party spent 5 years saying We must fight in Afghanistan not Iraq. Are they hypocrites or have things just radically changed in 8 months.

[ThesagaciousOne]

Since the middle of 2003 all we heard from the Democratic party was Afghanistan! Afghanistan! The Republicans are fighting the wrong war. We must concentrate on Afghanistan. We should not be in Iraq. George Bush is fighting the wrong war. We should not be in Iraq. We must concentrate on Afghanistan. That is where the problem is. See!! We are not weak on defense. We want to fight in Afghanistan. We are strong on defense. We want to fight in Afghanistan.
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.

[BBackSoon]

Nice imagery, Very effective.

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.

[ThesagaciousOne]

So, did this loss occur in just the last 8 months or has that been true for a number of years? To the Democratic Party was Afghanistan just a political tool and they were/are hypocritical?

[nm11928]

You're full of it--the neocons now want out of all wars because they ruin our country and blew out our budget!

[larry278]

In other words, Obama bought Afghanistan from W & we're stuck with paying for it. Our troops are stuck with going to Afghanistan. That means that American GI's can & will be maimed, killed & be treated like dung when they return home. The USA is programmed to throw away veterans unless the USA wins the war of the day & is praised by the world; that doesn't happen too often. WW II was the last war America won.

[BBackSoon]

Have you ever seen the stat that America had never lost a war when they used Mules?

Just a little tidbit of useless info but somehow it popped into my head.

[Nakona]

The republicans will exploit the Afgahn situation to their favor, then they will continue the war, just like Obama did. They will also continue the Obama effort to upgrade the Columbian bases Obama is deploying the military as well as the areas Obama wants to deploy the military in Africa.

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.

[snesich]

Notice how whenever it comes to health care, Medicare, Social Security, education or other programs that actually help citizens and greatly improve their lives, we're constantly told that these are "unsustainable" and that we must "reform" and "cut costs" for them.

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?

[Nakona]

No, it's predictable.

[GrandMaSassy]

I was speaking to a contractor who just returned from Afghanistan. He said it's alot like Viet Nam. We are fighting the enemy on their own turf. The locals don't want us there. So I'm wondering, why don't we just use this money to secure American turf. My opinion is that we can never"win" a war or even rein them in. I am still disappointed that we did not act to help the Somali people when they needed us most. Not enough money in it I quess.

[noneIn2008]

Pull the plug. Turn it over to Russia, it is their back yard. Let them defend the pipeline and refine the opium.

[ydrittmann]

Have we finished building the pipeline yet?

[BBackSoon]

An Opium pipeline?

[rbenjamin]

Here is another scenario. Afghanistan and Iraq are separate wars, but both are draining the same bucket. What happens if the bottom drops out of BOTH? This seems very likely, given the recent uptick in Iraqi sectarian violence. Two more surges? Probably not feasible given the cumulative strain on the US military. Two withdrawals? Politically risky, even if falling public support for a failing set of policies dips further. Muddle along in two perpetual stalemates? Also politically unpalatable. At that point might the Joint Chiefs privately advise Congress: "enough, you are bleeding us white for no purpose" and firmly but quietly broker a truce between Democrats and Republicans giving Obama enough political cover to bring the troops out?

[verycold]

Obama made this decision to make Afghanistan his war. He said that from Day 1 when campaigning which has nothing to do with republican support.

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?

[noneIn2008]

Excellent point, the silent wars. At least Huff has started to post more, thank you. Obama can achieve a goal, pull the plug today. Congress can still stop the wars by stopping the funding, today. We the people must keep the pressure on and keep this on the radar. Our oppositions to the wars must be heard. We can not accept excuses. Get us out now.

[eilish]

I wonder what happens when the money for the defense budget dries up; it can't go on forever at the astronomical amounts with the economy rapidly sinking into the mire. We're gonna have to bow out in all wars soon, what with needing the military to attempt to control all the rioting and extremists who will be out gunning.

[Factonfact]

We're there to keep the Taliban and Al-Quaeda out. It's as simple and clear as that. Why muss it up with assertions of nation building, protecting the populace and the like?

[noneIn2008]

Are we going into Pakistan to kick out the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. And Sudan? And..........

[ydrittmann]

Because the Taliban is already there and they melt into the population. The only way to find them is to gain the trust of those who can out them. Where have we fought this war before?

[BBackSoon]

Hearts and Minds?

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.

[S1m0n]

The Taliban are the people who live there. That's why they're fighting you. No one else wants it.

~~

As for al Qaeda, the US has already driven them out of four other countries, some multiple times. If that could stop them, it would have happened in the 90s Clinton drove them out of Sudan and Somalia. As you know, we haven't heard a peep from them since then.

[ThinkCreeps]

You mean what it might look like in the US. In Afghanistan no-one would notice.

[Startreklivz]

but what would it look like for the Afghani people? It's their country & lives we're mucking up ....