Washington – President Obama has bought himself some time on Afghanistan and lived up to his promise to seek policies that fit into no one’s philosophical pigeonholes. He has also split his own party, diminished the enthusiasm of his natural allies, yet earned himself no lasting credit with his domestic adversaries.
By these measures, Obama’s surge-and-wind-down strategy is both gutsy and politically risky.
This view flies in the face of the common description of his Tuesday night address as a carefully balanced political appeal. There was calculation in the speech but it had to do with winning support for his policy, not with electoral advantage. On the matter of helping the election chances of congressional Democrats next year, the speech was a net loser.
Obama was trying to identify middle ground by offering a Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right. He pointedly reassured doves that he had no interest in a “dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort,” while insisting to hawks that “our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
He argued that the only way to speed our departure from Afghanistan was to speed the entry of 30,000 troops now to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum.” In the Vietnam years, many spoke of a “win-or-get-out” choice. Obama’s is a “stop-losing-to-get-out” plan.
But in our current political moment, those who seek middle ground are typically crushed. This is especially true in foreign policy, a field powerfully politicized during George W. Bush’s presidency. Politics no longer stops at the water’s edge; that’s where it begins.
Obama spoke longingly of ending the “rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.” In light of the reaction to his speech, one can only say: Good luck.
Even Democrats once interventionist in their foreign policy views have been turned off by the overreach of the Bush years. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was revealing — and honest — when he told Politico before Obama’s speech: “I’m not as prone to jumping into wars as I used to be.”
What Obama said at West Point about Afghanistan would have been uncontroversial before the long occupation of Iraq. Now, half or more of Obama’s own party wishes he would wind the Afghan war down. There will likely be no congressional votes on funding the new surge until the spring because Democratic leaders, particularly in the House, know how much opposition there is in their ranks.
But the GOP’s response was tepid. Many Republicans welcomed the troop commitments, but then moved quickly to the attack, especially on Obama’s insistence that we could begin to withdraw forces by July 2011. “If you tell the enemy when you’re leaving, it emboldens your enemies and dispirits your friends,” Sen. John McCain told CBS on Wednesday morning, encapsulating a common Republican critique. Others were annoyed at Obama’s criticism of Bush for neglecting Afghanistan in favor of Iraq.
Note what’s going on here: Obama’s efforts to persuade enough skeptics — especially in his own party — by placing a limit on how long we will stay and by trying to separate Afghanistan from Iraq earned him only reproofs from the other party. Heads, Obama loses with the doves; tails, he loses with the hawks. There is not a large market for owls claiming the wisdom of the middle way.
Yet the paradox is that by absorbing all this political pain, Obama will succeed in his short-term goal of gathering sufficient support to keep the battle in Afghanistan going and give his surge a chance. If he’s right that progress can be made quickly and that troops can begin to withdraw, political opposition will recede. If the policy fails or stalls, he will have hell to pay.
It helps Obama that Democrats are split not in two but in three: a small number of hawks who agree with his decision; a large number of doves who oppose it; and a sizable group uneasy with Obama’s choice but respectful of how and why he made it. “God, I hope he’s right” were the words I heard from several Democrats, expressing precisely the mixture of faith, hope and doubt that characterizes this politically decisive group.
These Democrats know that the politics of this are bad unless the policy turns out to be good. They are praying that Obama knows what he’s doing. For now, they will grant him his year and a half.
(c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 8 days to add 460 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.