"Anti-war" Democrats in Congress question President Obama's anti-war stance:
After campaigning on the promise to end one war, President Barack Obama is preparing to escalate another.
Obama's dual stance on the two wars is not lost on congressional Democrats, many of whom also ran on anti-war platforms. In coming weeks, they expect to have to consider tens of billions of dollars needed for combat, including a major buildup of troops in Afghanistan.
While increasing the military's focus in Afghanistan was anticipated — it was a cornerstone of Obama's campaign — many Democrats acknowledged in recent interviews that they are skittish about sending more troops, even in small numbers.
...
"Before I support any more troops to Afghanistan, I want to see a strategy that includes an exit plan," said Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts liberal who at one point wanted to cut off money for the Iraq war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090208/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afghanistan
I have seen the results of the war in Iraq (see the article on Arbil on my other blog). I also knew from the beginning what the war was supposed to accomplish. Iraq now appears to be a working democracy. And although there were many civilian casualties (and I don't mean made-up numbers in the million range), the war caused considerably fewer deaths than Saddam's rule over the same period of time. I was a proponent of the war in Iraq from the beginning and it has paid off.
I cannot say the same thing about the war in Afghanistan.
The war in Iraq was run by the US with British and Australian help without UN or NATO involvement. The war in Afghanistan was fought, so far, like liberals and internationalists wanted to fight a war: there is lots of UN involvement and everything that is done is done only when European countries like Germany or France approve of it. And so far the war has been a disaster. The lowest estimate of casualties is 30,000 and the war is nowhere near as finished as the Iraq war. And it doesn't help that the European "allies" rarely contribute usable troops.
If Obama wants to abandon the war that the US are winning in favour of a war that cannot be won, I think we might just experience a second Vietnam. But perhaps sending more troops to Afghanistan will help. Perhaps Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who sit in Pakistan will be sufficiently scared by American troops located in another country and will give up, although I wouldn't count on it.
I remember that Barack Obama spoke about attacking Pakistan if necessary. I wonder if attacking an unstable nuclear power is wise, but perhaps he is right. (I myself would prefer pressure on Pakistan in conjunction with India, but Obama might well take unilateral action and that might be the correct way to deal with the situation.)
Republicans should support President Obama on this. The US cannot just withdraw from both battlefields. (And Obama is learning slowly that the US cannot just withdraw from one battlefield either. The Iraqi government doesn't want the troops to leave, regardless of Obama's opinion on a withdrawal.)
But the "anti-war" Democrats have a point too: if you demand an exit plan for one war, you should have one for the other war as well (if we assume that we need "exit plans" rather than victories in wars).
The war Obama wanted to end ended before Obama even became President. The war he wants to continue might well turn out to be unwinnable.
George Bush's "exit plan" (AFTER victory) was to make Iraq into a modern democracy. As the elections last week have shown it has actually worked:
"It is beautiful," said Hatim, pleased and proud over the tumult of the grass-roots campaigning and the pictures of candidates slapped on the sides of buildings.
Hatim's enthusiasm for the election is particularly telling because he's a Sunni Arab -- the once-disaffected group that largely shunned Iraq's provincial races four years ago.
But Hatim and other Sunni Arabs will be among about 15 million registered voters turning out Saturday for the elections -- seen as a test of the country's young democracy, the performance of its security forces, and a harbinger of parliamentary elections to be held later this year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/27/iraq.elections/
I agree that George Bush fought the war in Afghanistan without paying enough attention to it, instead relying on the UN and NATO to figure out what to do about it. This was what the left wanted, but it was wrong. (The left now say that he should have paid more attention. But originally they wanted as much international involvement as possible.)
But I do want to know what Obama actually wants to achieve in Afghanistan.
Does he have plans to make the country into a working democracy (and Afghanistan is not Iraq and it might not work) or will he simply bomb the place for a while and then leave it alone to see what happens next?