Blogs and Stories
The New Anti-War Right
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters
If Obama thinks the left is rapidly abandoning him on Afghanistan, wait till he sees the Republican defectors.
Thus far, President Obama has primarily been worried about his left flank as he sends more troops to Afghanistan. He should be just as worried about his friends on the right. I fully expect that over the next year Republicans will begin to abandon the president en masse over Afghanistan.
Obama’s saving grace on Afghanistan has been that conservatives, from the Republican leadership in Congress to Sarah Palin to leading foreign-policy thinkers like Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, have backed a troop surge and have been mostly willing to back the White House on this particular issue. But now Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican known for his independent streak, has made a conservative case for withdrawal. And my guess is that by the 2010 congressional elections, dozens of Republican candidates will be doing the same across the country.
There is a growing sense that the U.S. military is too hamstrung by concern about civilian casualties and political correctness to wage an effective military campaign under Obama.
• Tina Brown: Obama’s Fog of War
• Lee Siegel: The Zero-Sacrifice Presidency Last month, a CBS News poll found that just 23 percent of Democrats believe that an increase in the number of U.S. troops will improve the situation, and some of the party’s 2010 candidates are already on record as opponents of the surge, including Arlen Specter and would-be Ted Kennedy successor Martha Coakley. Throughout the long presidential campaign, Barack Obama called for winding down the American presence in Iraq to focus on the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, so there is no sense the president is pulling a foreign policy bait-and-switch. But among Democrats, and particularly left-of-center Democrats, there is a pervasive sense that the Obama administration has proved too cautious and centrist on domestic issues. That means there is less willingness to give the president the benefit of the doubt on waging an expensive counterinsurgency, particularly as many of the left’s domestic priorities could well be sacrificed on the altar of deficit reduction.
And so the president is caught in an extremely awkward position. Abandoned by the Democrats, he is relying on the support of a shrinking centrist foreign-policy establishment that, to put it bluntly, has zero political muscle. The conservatives who back the troop surge don’t think the president is going far enough, and most expect that his effort to craft a compromise counterinsurgency will fail. Among grassroots conservatives, there is a growing sense that the U.S. military is too hamstrung by concern about civilian casualties and political correctness to wage an effective military campaign under Obama, which implies that there is little point in offering him political support.
In a statement on his House Web site, Chaffetz makes the point explicitly. Deriding the idea of a counterinsurgency strategy, he writes, “our military is not a defensive force for rough neighborhoods around the world.” Rather than fight to protect Afghan civilians, Chaffetz argues that U.S. forces should focus exclusively on al Qaeda’s threat to the homeland by targeting and killing its members. In essence, Chaffetz is recognizing the contradiction at the heart of what had been bipartisan support for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan: Americans have supported the war effort insofar as it is designed to keep Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda. But the consensus among foreign-policy experts is that the safe-haven argument is weak: The tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia are far likelier candidates for a safe haven, and Islamist terrorists also are found in American and European cities. The more sophisticated case, made by conservative foreign-policy intellectuals like Christian Brose and Daniel Twining, rests on the need to shape Pakistan’s behavior. As strong as this case may be—I happen to think that it is completely correct—it isn’t very politically potent, particularly when it looks to the American public as though U.S. soldiers are dying to protect one group of Pasthun tribesman from another.
Chaffetz’s argument resonates strongly with what Walter Russell Mead has referred to as America’s Jacksonian tradition. In a 2003 interview, Mead described the Jacksonians as being a bit like bees: “When somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death.” The goal isn’t to go abroad to build friendships across cultural divides or to heal the sick. Rather it is to ferociously punish anyone who dares attack the United States. Jacksonians thus have little regard for civilian casualties—they don’t believe in limited wars. By its very nature, a counterinsurgency campaign is a limited war, one that relies on winning over the civilian population through the careful use of military force combined with deft diplomacy. The idea is to use persuasion as much as possible and coercion as little as possible. So when Chaffetz writes that we’ve tied the hands of our military, he means that vanquishing enemies, not nation-building, should be our core goal.
Remember that the bitterest opponents of the Clinton-era U.S. interventions in Kosovo and Haiti were conservatives like Tom DeLay, who condemned the Clinton administration for treating “foreign policy as social work,” in Michael Mandelbaum’s evocative phrase. The post-9/11 moment represented a departure from this conservative suspicion of nation-building, as Jacksonian sentiments were yoked to the ambitious project of building democracies in the Muslim world. But now that Obama, a man most conservatives dislike and distrust, is the steward of that effort, those conservative instincts are making a comeback. Jason Chaffetz represents the beginning of a wave—and it’s not obvious that Obama can do anything to stop it.
Reihan Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the co-author of Grand New Party.
For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
What Liberal Bloggers Can Teach the Right
Reihan Salam is a policy advisor at e21 and a fellow at the New America Foundation.
Give Him His Well-Deserved Break
Reihan Salam is a policy advisor at e21 and a fellow at the New America Foundation.
We Got Screwed in the Spy Swap
Reihan Salam is a policy advisor at e21 and a fellow at the New America Foundation.
AlanD2
Republicans will abandon Obama on anything that potentially improves Obama's (or Democrat's) standing in the U.S. or the world.
Nothing new here - they have been doing this for the last 10 months.
diamondgirl
Alan, do you think the rest of the world is happy Obama is escalating this war? I don't think so...
By the way the Dems did nothing but slam Bush, same behavior different year, how soon we forget...
bobj72
"zirc lady"; Thou doth whine... far too much. Furthermore, IF anyone did slam Bush... rest assured it was deserved. Conversely... though you might find it convenient to assume the Increased Troop Level is an escalation, so be it. You're Out Of Step with most of your Warmongering Republican't brotherhood. And that's pretty clear!
newswoman
This escalating of the war is a big mistake on the President's part. He has little Dem support and a supposed Rep support. The Reps are already trying to distance themselves from anything Obama does, even if it is what they say they want. He is in a 'no=win' situation.
case1234
Title of the article should have been "The blatant, shameless, craven, opportunism of the Right" as they move against the war.
But in reality I have always found it odd that neo-cons and libertarian are in the same party considering they have diametrically opposite foreign policy ideologies. First amost flirt with neo-imperialism rather than conservatism while the later wants to end our large scale military engangement with the world. -- go figure.
FatFreddy
Libertarians oppose military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations. Libertarians have some very fundamental differences with Republicans, as well as with Democrats. This should help explain it for you and others:
The Typical Libertarian is hated by conservatives because he wants the freedom to snort coke off a teenaged hookers ass while smoking pot and watching a movie full of boobies and cuss words in preparation for sodomizing his illegal immigrant housekeeper, Carlos. The Typical Libertarian also wants criminals, terrorists and Mexicans to roam freely about causing all manner of social chaos, and has no interest in forcing people to love Jesus Christ. The Typical Libertarian is a traitor to the GOP and America because he failed to support the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the Stimulus, and both Bush and McCain, despite the fact that both men once said something at a cocktail party about maybe possibly lowering taxes on some people some day.
The Typical Libertarian is hated by liberals because he is a crypto-archconservative who wants poor people to go without education, medical care, police protection, food, shelter, and oxygen. The Typical Libertarian spends his weekends running down endangered species in his monstrous, gas-guzzling SUV before stopping off to smoke a pack of cigarettes in a daycare. The Typical Libertarian wants the world to be run by unaccountable multinational conglomerates instead of unaccountable governments. The Typical Libertarian is a racist, sexist, profit-driven nihilist who failed to mark the ascendance of the Chosen One, and has never protested for Union rights nor worn a T-shirt with the word Darfur on it.
sfgary
@FatFreddy
So we can assume you don't like Libertarians? I think we need some of yr. scholarly take on the Republicans and Democrats.
mightyCW
Chaffetz is a terrible Rep. who was elected on an explicitly racist anti-immigrant campaign, and his statement is full of jingoistic, empty-headed nonsense about needing the will to "win" Afghanistan, as though it were a conventional war where we could easily find and crush the enemy. Reminds me of conservatives who used to myopically complain about Johnson's unwillingness to "win" Vietnam while completely ignoring the nature of the war itself. Nevertheless, Chaffetz has at least used bonehead premises to reach the correct conclusion, that using military as peacekeepers and builders is inherently contradictory. It puts Obama in an impossible situation. The pro-war right's always going to find reasons not to support him, and more and more conservatives will join their leftist counterparts and belatedly discover the virtue of peace. Or more likely, they'll ramp up anti-war rhetoric with the hidden subtext of "we should be running this war, not you", much like Nixon Republicans did. Should Republicans regain power in '12 they'll only find new and creative ways to screw up the situation over there, just like Obama and Bush...
FrankieRay
MightyCW's conclusions about Chaffetz motivations and premises are factually incorrect.
My father was the head of the CIA's Middle East bureau during Bill Clinton's administration, and prior to that in the 1980's he was in charge of all CIA efforts to help Afghanistan defeat the Soviet Union. Having personally done so, my father has had first hand in-country knowledge of Afghanistan since the days of the Mujahadeen until this very day...as he is currently right now in McChrystal's ISAF HQ today as I am typing this.
Last summer, Jason Chaffetz was assigned by Congressional leadership to participate in a fact finding in-country visit to Afghanistan. Because I worked on Jason's election campaign and he knew me and of my father, Chaffetz approached me and asked me to set up a meeting with my father, who is now retired, because he (Chaffetz) wanted to hear as many independent opinions about the history and situation in Afghanistan as possible, to prepare himself before he went over there without having to rely only on what the administration and congressional party leaders were telling him.
That method...researching out and finding as many independent opinions as possible...is a hallmark of Jason Chaffetz and it is why I worked to help elect him. It is why this article CORRECTLY describes Jason as "known for his independent streak" and why here in Utah we helped Republican Jason Chaffetz defeat a 6 term REPUBLICAN incumbent who wasn't independent and didn't think for himself.
Unfortunately, to write off Chaffetz, who has blasted his own party many times, as being motivated by "merely jingoistic, empty headed nonsense" is to expose one's own failure to do their homework.
khepri
Omigod, Chaffetz and Mead have written Al Qaeda's playbook:
"When somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death." The goal isn't to go abroad to build friendships across cultural divides or to heal the sick. Rather it is to ferociously punish anyone who dares attack..." the ISLAMIC world.
This take no prisoner's attitude is exactly what Mohammed Atta had in mind as he steered the plane into the twin towers. But because he would agree w Chaffetz and Mead, does that make it correct?
Watch out for Mr. Salam, everybody. He is poison, and uses his subtle wiles to inviegle you into continuing and expanding America's perpetual war.
Shame on you, Salam.
mightyCW
Forgive me, I severely underestimated Chaffetz. He's a well-informed, independent thinker who merely chooses to express himself in empty-headed, jingoistic terms. He's not a fool, he's a demagogue. Wonderful. Far be it from me to doubt your father's experience, but the CIA's track record in "assisting" the Soviets in Afghanistan was at best dodgy and at worst disastrous. Anyway, somehow Jason became convinced that we can "win" Afghanistan if we somehow show more resolve and throw more troops at it, which is a pleasant delusion long held by imperial powers - sure did wonders for the USSR! That's the only reason he supports withdrawal - again, just like antiwar Republicans during Vietnam.
I'd also add that his primary campaign (which, I reiterate, was based largely on stoking racist and xenophobic fears against immigrants) really only undermined Utah's GOP by unseating a senior representative who had the clout and committee connections to actually accomplish things (not that I particularly cared for Cannon, understand). I'm from the 3rd district and followed the campaign closely; I thought Chaffetz was merely a lightweight, but from what you're saying he's actually just willfully ignorant.
TheGreatGrayFox
We should stick around in Afghanistan until we're off Middle-Eastern oil. Once we're out, we cut communications and travel to Middle-Eastern countries until they wise up and at least begin counter-acting Islamic extremism. It'll still cost us money, but it won't cost us blood. Of course this wouldn't eliminate all risk of terrorist attacks, but it'll greatly reduce the ease by which it could occur. Profiling would also have to become a reality at airports and in regard to entering the country - it's not a good thing, but we need a little common sense. It sucks that we'd have to actually do that, but it's a good way to preserve the majoirty of American freedom and not be at war with someone for once.
Sigh. Now Dumbocrats go ahead and tell me how I'm a bigot because I said "Islam" and "extremism" in the same sentence or I mentioned profiling.
Repuglicans go ahead and flame about how I'm an unpatriotic pansy for not wanting to blow anyone up, and how I forgot to mention THAY TOOK OUR JERBS!
/thread
crypto
Sounds Real. But no it won't stop the attacks. And you're right about the Islam and extremism part. Obama won't allow anything that creates an unfriendly atmosphere with his people. They didn't take our jobs. All of the countries that have a majority of our work did it from a business proposition. Walmart has the largest plant in the world...........in China. Cheap labor, no Seiu to put up with. Automobiles are more hands on in mfg. in Japan, Korea, China, and this will continue because of our governments relationship with
seiu. No I took your statement as a showing of the emotion of just about every American today. Frustration and no leadership to turn to.
diamondgirl
We had this discussion the other day, those who have a problem with any one complaining about discrimination towards Muslim Extremists, have no argument until the Christians symbols and the Religion are no longer attacked and discriminated against in this country.
Last time I looked we still have freedom of speech
JayGetty
"Nice LONG lasting WAR and sell lots of weapons" C 1991 Getty; under the heading "Syrious Business" describing this war and battle tactics; delivered to every member of confress in 1991.
This war is as phoney/predictable as a three dollar bill!
Peter0000
With this administration and congress in power, I say get out of afghanistan. We need real leadership to succeed. We need our American Soldiers here in the USA to protect the Constitution from the enemies within. Namely to protect us from the white house and congress and the destructive course they are imposing us.
unsuiatlarge
Do any of the readers here have the tiem and energy to point out how stupid this post is? A military dictatorship, charming.
eurydice9276
Okay, so you say that over the next year Republicans will defect and start calling for a withdrawal. But if they approve the plan now, who cares if they defect later? And if they approve it now, 2010 is coming up too soon for them to distance themselves.
Peter0000
Get out of Afghanistan. Save American lives now. With this executive and congressional leadership in place, better to "bow out". No chance of success with this incompetent and indecisive president. I now preemptively apologize for the greatness that is AMERICA.
Tiparillo
From Admiral Mullen, Chairmen Joint Chiefs onthe process:
""I have seen my share of internal debates about various national security issues -- especially over the course of these last two years. [Eg, including the Iraq "surge."] And I can honestly say that I do not recall an issue so thoroughly or so thoughtfully considered as this one.
"Every military leader in the chain of command, as well as those of the Joint Chiefs, was given voice throughout this process ... [all ellipses in original] and every one of us used it.
"We now have before us a strategy more appropriately matched to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan ... and resources matched more appropriately to that strategy -- particularly with regard to reversing the insurgency's momentum in 2010.
"And given the stakes in Afghanistan for our own national security - as well as that of our partners around the world - I believe the time we took was well worth it."
The rise of the Know Nothings continues.
Ronym5
Reading the bigoted ignorant comments here I would wonder how many of these people have actually been to a country that has been on the bombing end of America's greatness.
Isn't it hilarious to see conservative enacting the same nativist tribalism the europeans considered the native americans barbarous for.
janebjamin
I thought Mr. Obama was going to keep his eye on the ball.Instead of fighting a war to prevent a possible terrorist attack. How about what's happening here? It seems as though the american people are under attack from the big banks and Wall Street. Why doesn't that matter? I voted for Obama believing he would be a lobyiest for the american people, I have been deeply dissapointed ,as I have discovered the emptiness of his words.
cassandro
"conservatives, from the Republican leadership in Congress to Sarah Palin to leading foreign-policy thinkers like Bill Kristol ..., have backed a troop surge"
I think that speaks for itself.
Free12
We are having a community organizer (disguised as President) manage a war.
Oldscool
Thank you for this article. The absurd, self defeating, politically correct rules of engagement enforced upon our troops will sadly lead to mission not accomplished and it makes me sick. Our female troops are wearing head scarves in deference to Islam for crying out loud. Our guys can't shoot at an insurgent unless the insurgent is judged to be, "ready to shoot" at him. Most detainees are released. This is utter madness and yet another sign that PC (of our own making) is our worst enemy. The West Point Cadets were props for Obama's speech and our troops are props for his political ambitions. Bring them home!
khepri
Yes, bring them home because...they can't kill with the reckless abandon you advocate?
nadorn85
Reckless abandon? Naw, we'll just let the drones take care of murdering innocent people in large swathes.
periscope
Republicans have gradually become warmongers and DOD admirers as they saw it resonate with a fear-ridden electorate (guess who was spreading the "fear of commies, fear of terrorists, fear of whatever?").
Bushboy and the Republican Party stuck America in Iraq and Afghanistan with an all-volunteer army that was supposed to be just for the actual defense of America.
Obama inherited these two huge Republican messes, and is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq and trying to stabilize Afghanistan so we can leave.
It's not surprising that the Republicans won't help. The needs of the country never matter to them.
carkrueger
Rep. Jason Chaffetz has been in Congress for 10 months. He does not speak for the party.
I don't know a Republican who does not think it's a smart move to give the Generals what they want.
People on the Right might not be happy with the timeline, but we support President Obama on AF-Pak
jjsim1965
I, also, feel we are in the hands of someone who does not have the experience to manage a war, but he has appointed those who do have it, and he should listen to him. He could have gone down in history as a great President, but he choses to chase some idealisitic b.s. and sidesteps things that would make him one of the greats.
I agree that we need someone to protect us from Washington. It seems the Democrats have gotten pretty good at throwing blame, diagnosing those who disagree as "not smart', and spending money. They are not doing a good job of running a country. Saul Alinski was good for one thing... destroying a country, and it is time to get rid of the Alinski "charm". If the Democrats don't wake up and start working toward goals that keep our country strong, they need to be replaced, and they will be.
Now that it is leaked that there may be some mismanagement of facts backing global temperature changes, there is not much reason to go on with those goals until we clean that mess up. What a waste of time! They have been working on things that either will not work or things we don't need. What a legacy.
Tiparillo
The rise of the Know Nothings continues!
Egeshegava
BRAVO jj1965
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.