In this week’s National Journal poll, the political bloggers were asked to grade the Congressional leadership. Left-leaning bloggers were asked to grade the Democrats, and Right-leaners were asked the grade the Republicans. The Left gave the Democrats a C. The Right gave the Republicans a C+. I gave the Republicans a B, and wrote “Doing a solid job opposing Obama’s out-of-control deficit spending and his attempts to impose federal control on matters that are constitutionally the decisions of individuals or the states. If the Republicans had been similarly firm with Bush’s over-spending and over-federalization, there might be many more of them in Congress today.”
Question two asked, “On balance, would sending more troops to Afghanistan be a political plus or minus for President Obama?” Sixty-five percent of the Right, but only 15 percent of the Left thought it would be a political plus. I voted “plus,” and wrote “In the long term, for both the president’s political standing and for America’s security, victory in Afghanistan is a large plus, and defeat is a disastrous minus.”
gab says:
How many more troops in Afghanistan would it take to win Dave?
October 2, 2009, 9:44 amgab says:
Edit: win, Dave?
October 2, 2009, 9:45 amCrunchy Frog says:
More important than more troops is a change in the Rules of Engagement, similar to that which Patreus used in the Iraq surge.
October 2, 2009, 9:47 amwfjag says:
IMO, it’s not that sending more troops would be a plus for BHO, but it would be more of avoiding minuses.
Increasingly, BHO is being viewed as a wimp. In international affairs, perception is at least as important as reality. If the leaders of Iran, NK, Venezuela, Libya, Cuba, Russia, China, etc., believe he can be pushed around because he will avoid confrontations and not take decisive action, they will do so to promote their respective nations’ self-interests, and to advance themselves within their respective nations’ domestic politics. By committing more Troops to Afghanistan, he looks like he is willing to act decisively, and that although he does not openly discuss using military options, he is willing to do so despite domestic political opposition from his base of support.
BHO campaigned on the idea that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. If he backs off supporting the Commanding General he picked, it looks like he will crawfish when there are tough choices, or when the left wing of the Democratic Party objects.
Following Biden’s plan – using missiles from unmanned aircraft – is a trap, showing again that Joe should always be seen but not heard. In the first Gulf War, support for military action against Saddam was high, then a smart bomb was used against a communication bunker that the military planners did not know was also being used as a bomb shelter for women and children. The pictures of dead women and children being removed from it significantly undermined support for Operation Desert Storm. Similarly, when air operations were taken against Serbia to force its withdrawal from Kosovo, support was high, until the camera from a smart bomb aimed at a railroad bridge showed the train entering the picture just before impact. Again, pictures of the civilian casualties significantly undermined support for the military operations. The Taliban and Al Qaeda already use human shields when possible. Sooner or later a bus or van carrying Taliban or Al Qaeda members, or a house in which they are staying or meeting, will also have women and children, who will also be killed in the missile or bomb strike. Will BHO have the resolve to continue using “smart” weapons when the pictures show dead women and children killed in the blast?
Since BHO took office, the press has virtually stopped reporting on US military casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. AP is the only news reporting services that still covers the flights into Dover (Del) AFB carrying KIAs. Although Code Pink apparently is still protesting, their activities are ignored by the press. BHO can probably count on similar press disinterest if additional Troops are sent to Afghanistan. While many of his supporters will not support that decision, they also will not be constantly reminded by news reports. Accordingly, while it may not be a “plus” for him, he avoids minuses by supporting the recommendations of the Commanding General he selected.
October 2, 2009, 10:18 amAllan Walstad says:
Re Afghanistan: I’m beyond tired with this irrelevant prattle about “defeat.” Stop doing what doesn’t work! Getting mired in a long-term guerrilla war against highly motivated indigenous people who are willing to take losses–in a politically fractured region with Afghanistan’s terrain–doesn’t work, doesn’t on balance serve any positive purpose. What made sense, as a response to 9/11, was a time-limited mission to try to capture or eliminate bin Laden and many of his crew, while punishing the Taliban for having harbored them. In. Out.
Politically, the longer Obama waits the more it becomes his war, and the worse for him will be the impression of “defeat” when he decides to to bring the troops home. Sending more troops now just digs him a bigger hole. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership remains committed to digging the same hole, perhaps the net loss to Obama is relatively small.
October 2, 2009, 10:23 am11-B/20.B4 says:
I’m not opposed to doubling down and flooding the hills of the Korangel with some hardcore airborne joes, but will someone please tell me what our MILITARY goal is? This is my contention with Iraq, Afghanistan all these places. The US Army hasn’t failed to meet a physical, military objective in quite a while. But we’re an ARMY people, we do not “build nations” we do not “create stability”. We burn things, blow things up and kill people. If you have something that needs burning, exploding, or killing, we’re your guys. For an analogy, the Army is a hammer, and most of what I hear coming from the politicians sounds suspiciously like hex-head screws. “Defeat”? The Armed forces haven’t lost an engagement yet in this ill-defined war, and we won’t. But we’re just a tool, and we aren’t being used for what we were designed for. The foreign policy debate is one thing, but defaulting to using the military because we’re the only ones who can’t say “no” is getting out of hand.
October 2, 2009, 11:21 amrick.felt says:
Wait, why is Kopel rating the Republicans?
October 2, 2009, 3:00 pmsteve says:
Stick to law. There are more than enough partisan hacks willing to speak out of ignorance on Afghanistan.
October 2, 2009, 6:14 pmArthurKirkland says:
“In the long term, for both the president’s political standing and for America’s security, victory in Afghanistan is a large plus, and defeat is a disastrous minus.”
I gather (a) this is a newly acquired position or (2) you resolutely opposed the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq.
And, regarding those additional soldiers you would send to the Graveyard Of International Meddlers: Planning to enlist anytime soon?
October 3, 2009, 12:04 pmtom swift says:
The concept of “winning” or “losing” depends on the desired, or required, objective. This is trickier than it seems. Not all wars are the same, and not all war objectives can simply be “assumed.” But all wars do certainly have objectives, even if most people, even participants, often don’t know precisely what they are. Unfortunately fuzzy concepts like “nation building” are often tossed around as substitutes for clear statements of objectives.
In Iraq, the object was indeed “nation building” – to place at the heart of the Arab world a model modern state, neither a despotic kleptocracy nor a medieval satrapy of the caliphate – something along the lines of a poor man’s Connecticut or Switzerland, a demonstration that the same general form of society which works, more or less, from San Francisco to London to Yokohama can also work for Arabic Muslims.
The situation in Afghanistan is entirely different. There, the goal is to prevent the country from being used as a base of operations by some homicidal group such as the Taliban – a much more modest target than “nation building.” Pretty much anything which does that would constitute victory. On the other hand, any attempt at “nation building” in Afghanistan is probably doomed to failure, no matter the expenditure in military and non-military resources.
October 3, 2009, 12:29 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
December 2, 2009, 8:39 pm