Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't
Obama and the domestic political risks of Afghanistan
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
As I've noted twice here recently, President Obama's biggest political challenge is not health care reform. It is Afghanistan. And now that he's reportedly deliberating whether to OK the military's impending request for a sizeable troop hike, apparently with a fair degree of skepticism as to the value of such a move, his potential domestic quandary is coming into sharper focus.
The prime political task of any president is to secure the strong support of his party base. But the Democratic base is strongly opposed to a troop hike in Afghanistan; the new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reports that two-thirds of all Democrats are saying no. So if Obama says yes to the military, and the troop hike fails to improve our prospects for success (which would not be a shock, given the current prowess of the insurgents, and the corruption and perceived illegitimacy of the Karzai government), he risks splitting his own party in ways reminiscient of what doomed LBJ 40 years ago in the wake of Vietnam.
Yet if Obama essentially says no to the military's recommendation, and that decision also fails to improve our prospects for success, the Republicans - 60 percent of whom support a troop hike, according to the aforementioned poll - will work overtime to morph Obama into Jimmy Carter, to roll out the traditional rhetoric about how Democrats are timid and weak on national security, and to complain that this president is losing a war he only recently described as crucial ("a war of necessity") and specifically vowed to win ("to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you").
Of course, the Republicans will do all this (actually, they're doing it already; Newt Gingrich this week referred to the Obama team as "the second Carter administration") while conveniently ignoring the fact that George W. Bush screwed up Afghanistan and thus bequeathed to Obama a steaming pile of dung with few cleanup options. But hey, that's politics.
I talked about the politics of Afghanistan, and the other potential domestic ramifications of Obama's foreign policy agenda, during a guest gig on Philadelphia's National Public Radio this morning, with foreign affairs columnist Trudy Rubin doing the heavy lifting on policy. Not that people care about the international realm; over the span of an hour, a grand total of one person phoned into the show. Nevertheless, you can listen to it here.
------
With respect to this blog's comment section, there was a disturbance in the force earlier today. For technical reasons, comments were blocked. Full venting rights have now been restored.
No morphing necessary, Obama IS Jimmy Carter.
The big problem with liberal Presidents is that policy decisions are made only with the guidance of public opinion polls. Only a few months ago Obama identified the war in Afghanistan as the necessary war and made know his committment to McChrystal to properly resource the war. And the strategy to surge troops in Afghanistan was put into play. Now in an utterly befuddling move the President wants to make sure the strategy is correct? I guess that wasn't needed many months ago when 20,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan. If Obama truly believes this was a necessary war then public opinion polls shouldn't matter and he should have the backbone to follow through on his policy and sell the merits to the electorate. . But theirin lies the biggest weakness for Democratic Presidents. Public opinion polls are the opiate that drives policy.- Finally, a mercifully concise column! Thank you! I have a suggestion for BO on his Afghanistan decision. Just vote "present."— pj katauskas
Comment removed.- Anyone who was paying attention during the Bush years knows that Bush himself stated that he was leaving the burden to end and any resulting outcome of both Afghanistan and Iraq to "other Administrations". When it became clear to Bush/Cheney that McCain/Palin were going down in flames, they made every move to ensure that any decision made by a Democrat in the White House, Obama specifically, would be a political Catch-22. Too bad for the despicable Repubs, the public has seen through that. Oh yes, those Repubs are War Profits and Party First, Country Second, Troops Never.— In on IT
- Reading the 3rd paragraph about Republicans...Democrats control all the power in Washington and own everything and Republicans are weak, ineffectual and insignificant yet Dick Polman spends most of his time writing about Republicans? Guess Dick's not as interested in speaking "truth to power" now that Democrats are the powerful. Isnt writing bad things about Repbulicans all the time when Democrats own everything the job of Liberal Bloggers at College newspapers and MSNBC?— Frito1
Here DP illustrates the "nuance" that liberals believe is one of their better traits. It's not. This type of thinking can only lead to catastrophe.— jmc- I hope the President doesn't waver in his support of a 'surge' in Afghanistan & the GOP will not waver in their support of him on this issue! Our generals are saying we need more boots on the ground (drones only doesn't cut it) and the President should heed their request. I have always thought the left of the dem party would give this President the most fits and that has been the case on almost every issue:) If he flip flops on Afghanistan and caves to the doves on the left, all that Mr. Polman mocks will be true & the GOP will, ***"roll out the traditional rhetoric about how Democrats are timid and weak on national security, and about how this president is losing a war that he only recently described as crucial ("a war of necessity") and specifically vowed to win ("to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you").*** And they will be right, IMHO!— NEPhilly
- Anyone who was paying proper attention during the Bush years knows that Bush himself stated that he was lazily and cowardly leaving the burden to end (and any resulting outcome of) both Afghanistan and Iraq to "other Administrations". When it became clear to Bush/Cheney that McCain/Palin were going down in flames, they made every move to ensure that any decision made by a Democrat in the White House, Obama specifically, would be a political Catch-22 by manipulating agreements, pacts and military directives. Too bad for the despicable Repubs, the non-sheep public has seen through that. Oh yes, those Repubs are War Profits and Party First; Country Second; Troops Never.— In on IT
- CD75 must be dying that the posts are taking so long to appear ...— LorettaL
- What, no Conse 'Pubs? If Obama is for staying, Geo. Will wants to leave. If Obama wants to leave, Condi Rice can see a mushroom cloud. Ya know, if you squint real hard, you can see it too.— Talvenada
- Politically, then, I'd expect him to approve the surge. Probably won't help. There are about twenty good books on why Afghanistan is the place in which a country should not involve themselves. His line of thinking will probably be appease the right because who else are the left-wingers going to support?— HandNik
- The author's title says it all. I've posted these ideas before. Isn't the Khyber Pass region where empires go to die? Speaking of Carter, he and Brzezinski used military intervention to bring the Soviet Union their own Vietnam (and give rise to the mujahideen). The war in Afghanistan helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. I think more than Reaganomics and the accompanying military buildup did. If military involvement broke the back of the Soviet Union, it won't be easy for Obama. ••• http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html— Phrossty
- The field general asks for more troops, the the liberal loons in Washington tell him no. History redux. I guess the liberal know more than the field general?— CD75
- Obama made the afgan war a poltical issue, now he is reaping what he caused.— CD75
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
