HOPE for Afghanistan?
Some conservatives are arguing that President Obama’s weakness and indecision forecast American failure–and that, if we’re going to fail, we should just get out now…Some Republicans are understandably dismayed at the prospect of supporting a war they worry this president is incapable of prosecuting with sufficient vigor or conviction. They argue that keeping faith with the troops requires rejecting any halfhearted approach. They are right that Americans who wish to support our troops in the field should not accept policies that deprive them of the means to win. But a turn by Republicans to rhetorical opposition to the war would only absolve the Obama administration of its Afghan duty. The better course is to push the administration to take responsibility for the outcome in Afghanistan by continuing to support a fully resourced war effort, while criticizing and opposing any decisions that undermine the troops’ chance of success…
A model for Republicans is the behavior of Senator John McCain from 2003 to 2007. McCain consistently questioned, challenged, and criticized President Bush’s strategy and tactics in Iraq, but he never wavered in his determination to do everything possible to succeed there.
No need for me to repeat how much I admire McCain. But if things get worse in Afghanistan as election day gets closer, will the GOP be tempted to take advantage?
Not impossible, but I think most Republicans feel that they were ultimately vindicated on Iraq, so backstopping the “war of necessity” is a much easier call.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
7 Responses to “HOPE for Afghanistan?”
Not “if things get worse” but “when things get worse” which they will… The GOP will turn on Obama like a pack of hienas turns on a wounded gazelle, and for good measure, the Left will sit back and watch the carnage.
W prosecuted the Afghan war for seven years, but now it's if we’re going to fail, we should just get out now.” Maybe Kagan and Kristol should place blame on themselves and their boy W…
“But if things get worse in Afghanistan as election day gets closer, will the GOP be tempted to take advantage?”
You are kidding right? Didn't you read your own post? “The better course is to push the administration to take responsibility for the outcome in Afghanistan by continuing to support a fully resourced war effort, while criticizing and opposing any decisions that undermine the troops’ chance of success…”
Chance of success . . . what do you think that means? Particularly since our “partners” have no interest in our success. Do you think that a tribal leader/war lord who inherited his job from his family going back five generations wants to have an election to decide what kind of job he is doing? Or that he wants some joker 500 miles a way telling him what to do? Or, shudder, pay taxes to that joker?
This is simply a rope-a-dope for the GOP.
Did I read my own post? Well, I certainly wrote it…
Anyhow, the line about partners not having an interest in our success is the same objection made to the surge in Iraq. We can debate whether it “worked”, but I'll take a 90%+ reduction in violence any day.
As for the GOP, that would be quite a sophisticated rope-a-dope strategy, to have every party leader support the surge unequivocally just so they can point fingers at Obama if/when the war goes badly. If you're committed to the view that the GOP so fundamentally cynical when thousands of American lives are at stake, I don't think I can change your mind.
Well, there's very little evidence that they aren't.
Yeah, many conservatives are positive that the Dems are fundamentally cynical when thousands of American lives are at stake, and I don't think I can change their minds either.
“Benevolent global hegemony”? [chuckle] You know the far lefties have lost it if Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky start calling Obama a neocon, not merely a warmonger.