In their recent collapse on setting an end date for the Iraq war, the Democrats have missed an opportunity to recast the war debate in a way more favorable both to our security interests and to their political fortunes. The Bush administration has so far successfully framed the terms of the debate as over support for “the troops”, fighting terrorism, and for war in general. Their plan is apparently to drag out the Iraq war until it becomes the problem of the next administration, onto which it will attempt to shift the blame for the catastrophe that will follow the inevitable withdrawal. With public support rapidly eroding, this type of “stay forever” argument is unlikely to prevail.
Instead the Democrats should place themselves on the GWOT high ground, and make supplemental funding contingent on a substantial redeployment to Afghanistan, with the goal of decisively crushing the Taliban, apprehending key Al-Quaida suspects in neighboring Pakistan, and building a functional state. The effort in Afghanistan, which was justified by the 9/11 attacks and is a key to our credibility and security in the region, has languished as a result of the Iraq misadventure. The chance to do it right, however, may still be available.
The Democratic surrender on Iraq funding, despite having much of the public on their side, seems to be based on a belief that an “anti-war” stance will hurt their long-term credibility on national security issues. I don’t really buy this, but even if this possibility exists, an Afghan redeployment would permit them to advocate an Iraq pullout without being “anti-war”. It would further allow them to highlight Republican bungling on security issues while actually casting themselves as tougher – because this plan involves going after the actors who attacked us, who Bush has allowed to remain on the loose for nearly six years. The Republican talking points that are endlessly trotted out to justify the Iraq debacle can all be turned easily subverted in this scenario. Who supports the troops more? We want to support the troops in going after the real culprits of 9/11 and their allies instead of putting them into the terror training ground that Bush has created in Iraq. Who is better at “staying on the offense”? A success in Afghanistan would be a greater blow to Islamic fundamentalism than leaving our troops tied down for years in a civil war they can’t suppress, and will demonstrate American resolve at least as effectively. Who is a cowardly anti-war surrender monkey? We are willing to fight for years if necessary to advance our interests but not to engage in a pointless bloodbath. And so on.
From a practical point of view, having a substantial troop presence in Afghanistan gives the U.S. a forward base in the region from which to intervene in other places if necessary. The less fractured political situation relative to Iraq would also provide the potential for success with fewer troops, allowing the military to reduce the lengths of deployments and the attendant strain on soldiers’ families. The reduction in troop commitments would also allow our strained forces to retrain and rearm more effectively.
While Afghanistan has long been the “graveyard of empire”, the military effort there at least has the virtue of being justifiable based on the Taliban’s terrorism ties. In the long term it is hard to say whether an American military presence will lead to a stable democracy and security. But if the American people really believe that the invasion and long-term occupation of foreign lands is the key to our security, as the Democrats seem to think based on their actions, then this is a better alternative than Iraq. Proposing such a move would bolster the Democrats’ standing in the long run a lot more than cowardly submission to Bush and his failed policies. If voters want “toughness” in their leaders, this plan is way to project that and if enacted would do more for our interests than dragging out the Iraq disaster.
0 comments:
Post a Comment