Barack Obama has plenty of problems with the Republican Party. But his biggest problem is the least obvious of them: the Republicans are turning anti-war. And as they do so, any popular base of support for the Afghan War disappears.
While the Republicans' long-entrenched hawk faction favors a less aggressive withdrawal from Afghanistan than Obama outlined in his Wednesday night address, or none at all, growing numbers of Republicans in Congress, many new Tea Party types, want the war to simply end. And because they are backed up by polling numbers showing a sharp decline in support for the war among Republican voters, the party's presidential candidates have responded with much less resolute rhetoric than in the past.
President Barack Obama announced his new Afghan War policy last night, promising to cut the number of troops there by a third by the end of summer 2012. But he's fallen behind public opinion.
At the first big Republican presidential debate of the season, putative frontrunner Mitt Romney opined that America shouldn't get bogged down in Afghanistan because "our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation."
Jon Huntsman, a new Republican establishment hope, called Obama's draw-down plans, "a little slow and a little cautious."
It's all too much for John McCain, who started pushing back hard on Sunday's chat shows against his party's newfound "isolationism." Withering under McCain's fire, Romney, predictably, vaguely backtracked some after Obama's speech, saying he's against "timetables," while still saying "we all want our troops to come home as soon as possible." And you wonder why he's called a weathervane.
It's one of the great ironies of contemporary politics that this Republican evaporation should be taking place. After all, it's the Republicans, and especially their then-dominant neoconservative faction, that steered America into Iraq -- one of the great non sequitur moves in history -- in the wake of 9/11. And it's the Republicans who made the test of patriotism, and international friendship, whether "you're for us or against us."
That's why it was necessary for national Democrats, i.e., those who intend to actually win elections by appealing to enough voters to do so, to make Afghanistan the good war and Iraq the bad war. But Obama, who correctly identified Iraq as a "stupid war," thus transcending notions of "good" or "bad," in 2002, took the whole thing way too far in late 2009 when he fatefully decided to do a big "surge" of his own in Afghanistan. Not content to pursue the appropriate mission there -- surveil and strike when necessary to prevent it from again becoming Al Qaeda's haven -- he engaged in a nation-building exercise in a place with far less infrastructure for that than Iraq. And Iraq is barely holding together, even with a huge American presence.
I wrote at the time that Obama's evident intent was to escalate to negotiate. But the negotiation is going slowly, if at all, with the Taliban more interested in waiting.
The reality is that it was a bad idea from the beginning. With the exception of Germany and Japan, both advanced industrial societies, in the aftermath of World War II, America has shown little ability at nation-building.
We're engaged in the resource and bandwidth equivalent of a moon shot in Afghanistan, but are building little more than sand castles in the tides of history.
With backing for the Afghan War plummeting among Republicans, 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain nonetheless decries Obama's timetable for a troop draw-down.
Counter-insurgency was never the way to go there. Counter-terrorism was the mission appropriate in the wake of 9/11.
On the eve of Obama's latest big speech on Afghan War policy, a new Pew Research poll showed that a record number want US troops brought home from Afghanistan as soon as possible:
For the first time, a majority (56%) says that U.S. troops should be brought home as soon as possible, while 39% favor keeping troops in Afghanistan until the situation has stabilized.The proportion favoring a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces has increased by eight points since last month (from 48%), immediately after the killing of Osama bin Laden. A year ago, just 40% favored removing the troops as soon as possible, while 53% favored keeping them in Afghanistan until the situation stabilized.
Americans continue to say the decision to use force in Afghanistan was the right one, and 58% believe the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan. That is largely unchanged from the 62% who said the U.S. would achieve its goals in Afghanistan shortly after Osama's death. But at the same time, a majority (56%) says it is unlikely that Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government after the U.S. military leaves. ...
Over the past year, support for removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible has increased across nearly all political and demographic groups.
Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) now say troops should be removed as soon as possible, up from 43% a year ago. A majority (57%) of independents also support immediate troop withdrawal, an increase of 15 points from last year.
Republican support for removing U.S. troops as soon as possible has risen 12 points since last June. At that time, 65% of Republicans favored keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan until the situation is stabilized while 31% favored removing them as soon as possible. In the current survey, 53% support keeping the troops there and 43% favor their withdrawal.
The take-down of Osama bin Laden, ordered by Obama, has spurred opposition to the Afghan War.
So we see that in one year's time, Republican support for the Afghan War has plummeted from a 34-point margin in favor to only 10 points.
The trend line is clear. And with more bad news on the way from Afghanistan, it will only continue.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
William Bradley Huffington Post Archive
Joe Peyronnin: The Tide of War
Michael Brenner: Three Questions After Obama's Afghanistan Speech
Ashwin Madia: Time For Troops To Come Home
Chris Weigant: Predicting Obama's Afghanistan Announcement
Obama's Afghanistan Plans Get Mixed Reactions
GOP candidates divided on Obama's Afghanistan plan
NATO says Obama's Afghan plan shows progress alliance has made
Boehner 'generally supportive' of Obama's Afghan plan
Reactions To Obama's Afghanistan Speech
Who will carry out Obama's Afghanistan exit plan? Three new guys.
Obama's Afghanistan speech: 'Spend at home,' but how? (Poll)
Political Hotsheet Split the baby? Obama's "centered" Afghan plan 6 of 9
Obama's Misplaced Afghan Triumphalism
Talks With Taliban Essential to Afghanistan Peace, Clinton Says
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/a-shifting-republican-par_b_888931.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/jerry-brown-finds-a-calif_b_886367.html
And they are driving their voters against the Libyan War, even though the cost and exposure are minuscule in comparison.
Counter-Terrorism, by its nature is proactive. Counter-insurgency, by its very nature is reactive. We did pursue counter-terror operations in the wake of 9/11, but it wasn't a small cell we were seeking to dismantle in Afghanistan. We were looking to take out, for lack of a better term, their command and control, and the hosts providing them support.
Had the Taliban agreed to assist, even mostly nominally, like we see in Pakistan, it could have stayed a counter-terror operation, but they didn't and AQ and the Taliban countered the only way possible against a more powerful opponent...by launching an insurgency. This left the U.S., if it was to continue its counter-terrorism mission, with little choice except to engage in counter-insurgency operations.
Bottom line? It's simple, and intellectually dishonest, to say, "Counter-insurgency was never the way to go...", but that presumes that we had a choice when, realistically, because of the potential outcomes, we had none. I realize that we Americans have been conditioned, like Pavlov's dogs, to expect instant gratification. The death of Bin Laden will finally allow us to disengage from Afghanistan and counter-insurgency operations, but it can't happen overnight...unfortunately, Repubs and Dems have politicized the process.
Nor is it necessary to sustain operations to disrupt Al Qaeda.
The intervention in Afghanistan was correct. The surge is not.
Counter-insurgency operation are not necessary to sustain counter-terror operations as long as you're willing to take losses without response...and if you respond, presumably you'll choose to respond in a way that is appropriate to conditions, so if facing an insurgency, you won't respond in a way suited for humanitarian operations
Yes, the intervention in Afghanistan was correct, as was the surge, which was nothing more than returning troop strength close to previous levels, was necessary.
If the GOP can beat Obama in 2012, it will be on the economy. I can't see them winning over moderates and undecideds on defense policy. They're not going to nominate Ron Paul, so whoever they do nominate will be somebody who was at least as hawkish as Obama in 08. And at least on defense, he has done what he always said he would do. He said that he would get out of Iraq, but carefully, and he's done that. If Iraq collapses, it won't be on Obama. Nobody really wanted us to stay any longer than we did. And he never said he would get us out of Afghanistan on any quick timetable. He could say that he did the surge to get the job done and now he's pulling out. How do you effectively run against that?
Meanwhile, we've stayed out of Iran, gotten involved in a very limited way in Libya and the Arab spring and killed Bin Laden. I really don't see an effective position for a Republican candidate to take against him on defense that is going to win any votes that were undecided in the first place.
>>> so whoever they do nominate will be somebody who was at least as hawkish as Obama in 08.
Pretty soon the republicans will figure out if they want to get elected they will have to steal ideas from the Democrats. But they still can't be trusted. They will lie, cheat and steal to get elected and then do what they dam.n well please! While calling 'THAT' the "will of the people".
Second, the House Democrats were a disaster all their own.
Their voters are turning against it, too.