Update: Ouch! Both the New York Times and Washington Post have major stories today portraying a fraying confidence in the Obama administration’s Afghan policy. Read both now!
In the American news, the words ‘Afghanistan’ has been followed by ‘deaths’, ‘setbacks’, ‘corruption’, etc. far too often of late. American and NATO deaths have been rising in quantity and frequency, President Karzai has been doing what he tends to do, be a far from dependable partner, and fresh reports of the Pakistani government and military being in bed with the Taliban have resurfaced. Even the ‘breaking’ story about rich deposits of minerals in the country have been quickly tempered with major caveats. These are stories that try everyday American minds and put further pressure on the US government in charge of the policy. Though polling data has so far stayed above the crucial 50% line of approval for our military presence in Afghanistan, there is serious concern that stories such as these along with a lacking of tangible progress (see Marja, soon to be Kandahar operations), are likely to erode this support. As Peter Feaver has persuasively argued, the Obama administration needs to survive two clocks on this topic, the one in Afghanistan (strategic success or failure on the battlefield) and the one here at home (domestic support for the war effort).
The subject of American public support for the war in Afghanistan is one of my pet topics and I look forward to exploring it more in depth as the Obama/McChrystal strategy evolves and we get closer to the stated July 2011 drawdown date. Speaking of the timeline, here is a succinct argument from an important side of those who oppose our current strategy/presence in Afghanistan; Realists. Though I myself do fall far from 100% into the Realist school, Real Clear World’s Greg Scoblete’s realist argument against Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy with a time line is very much in line with my own:
At the time the Afghan strategy was announced, I was on the fence about the virtues of a withdrawal timeline, but it increasingly looks untenable. If you’re going to commit to nation building and using tens of thousands of American troops to protect Afghan civilians while you jump-start reconstruction, then time-stamping an arbitrary withdrawal is counter-productive. It would be better, in my view, not to commit to nation building as a counter-terrorism strategy, but the administration seems to have fixed on the worst of both worlds: it won’t effectively nation build but will nonetheless risk American and NATO lives and siphon American taxpayer dollars into an effort it has already disavowed.
If the Obama administration loses more of these realists (well, the ones who he already had) will not bring the poll numbers crashing to the ground, but it may be a sign that those more willing to give the administration time and faith may be closer to changing their minds. It is extremely important that the administration convince the American public that not only is this a fight worth having, but one that the United States can and will win.
Next to be examined, the American left’s support for the war effort. In other words, will President Obama’s base abandon him on this issue or give him a strong foundation of support in the months ahead?
