Despite being engaged in an intense fight in Afghanistan and still having 50,000 troops in Iraq, this election cycle promises to be the first since 2000 in which national security issues have a small role. In an op-ed in the New York Times on Monday, NBC’s Tom Brokaw wrote, “[N]otice anything missing on the campaign landscape? How about the war?” Brokaw concludes the reason for the wars’ absence is not just because the economy is on the forefront of people’s minds, but because Americans can also opt out of serving in the military and therefore are impacted less by these conflicts. While Brokaw touched on a key point, his conclusion is only half the answer. It is also that both Republicans and Democrats are deciding not to make the wars an issue. Americans after all know how they feel about the wars — they want them to end. This has put the candidates in an awkward position. For Republicans, their long held advocacy of an endless unconditional commitment to both wars is deeply unpopular and is therefore avoided on the campaign trail. While some of the new Tea Party candidates have balked at an endless military commitment, they have provided no alternative approach, leaving many with an utterly incoherent position. For many Democrats taking their cue from the Obama administration, the uncertainty and division over the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan has left them without a clear message. Democratic political consultants have also long guided candidates away from talking about national security issues, but just as in 2006 and 2008, it is past time that progressives argue forcefully for sticking to the timeline for withdrawal. While the economy is clearly the dominant issue in this election, the United States is still sending its children to fight and die in a conflict that increasingly appears to be going nowhere. It is wrong for progressives not to speak up on these issues during the election season, especially when calling for a withdrawal is not only right, but it’s popular.
ENDLESS WAR: Republican leaders, such as Sen. John McCain (AZ), the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have long argued for an endless commitment to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans are largely opposed to setting a timeline for withdrawal based on the argument that the enemy will “wait us out” — despite the fact that this fear never materialized in Iraq. Regardless, the only argument most Republicans are making on Afghanistan is for staying indefinitely. But they are not making these statements on the campaign trail. The recent Republican “Pledge for America” almost essentially ignored Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not surprising considering the standard GOP position of endless war is deeply unpopular with the American public. Polling clearly shows that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A recent CNN poll found that 58 percent of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. The New York Times/CBS poll found that: “Americans’ assessments of the war are grim. A majority in the Times/CBS News Poll said the United States should not be involved in Afghanistan now, up 15 percentage points since December. And most said the war was going badly, down from its peak but well above the reading in the early years of the war, when broad majorities said it was going well.”
GOP INCOHERENCE: There is currently no Republican counter-plan for Afghanistan and the emergence of Tea Party candidates has only made Republican positions more incoherent. While the issue of Afghanistan is largely being avoided, when it is talked about by conservative candidates much of what is said is completely incoherent. Many Tea Party-backed candidates are instinctively opposed to an endless commitment or engaging in nation-building, but they are also against withdrawing U.S. forces. For instance, on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday, Republican candidate for Senate in Colorado Ken Buck was asked about the war in Afghanistan and provided a completely muddled answer. “Well, I, I don’t think we set artificial deadlines. I think that we, we set realistic goals, and, and we try to accomplish those goals. I don’t think we should be nation-building, I don’t think we should be staying there over the long-term,” he said. In four sentences, Buck noted that he is not just against a timeline for withdrawal, but he is also against the mission of building an Afghan state, which is the whole objective of top commander Gen. Petraeus’ counter-insurgency strategy. The Denver Post recently editorialized: “Buck’s critics now call his tap dance ‘Buckpedaling.’ … His position on Afghanistan has morphed so much it’s almost incoherent.” But Buck is not unique. Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell offered similarly disjointed comments in a debate last week about Afghanistan. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele even said that Afghanistan was “a war of Obama’s choosing” despite the fact that it began in October, 2001.
SPEAKING UP: The Obama administration’s troop increase in Afghanistan has not as of yet produced long term results. Bob Woodward’s recent book reveals clear divisions within the Obama administration over the Afghanistan strategy, especially over the interpretation of the July 2011 deadline. While it is common for members of the same party to follow their party’s leader on foreign policy issues, especially when that leader is the President, progressives should take a clear stand on the war in Afghanistan. This Sunday, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), who is in a tough political fight and is from a state with a large military population, appeared on Meet the Press and articulated a clear progressive position: “My position is that we ought to begin bringing our troops home in July ’11. And there will be troops there, they’ll have to leave troops there, and I recognize that. But this is the longest shooting war in our country’s history. … [W]hat I want to make clear is that I believe the President needs to honor the commitment that he made to begin bringing our troops home.” Other progressive candidates should follow Bennet’s lead. As Caroline Wadhams of the Center for American Progress wrote, “it is essential that President Barack Obama give this country and the world a clearer sense of how long it will take to draw down American troops in Afghanistan. … [W]e believe ambiguity is becoming counterproductive.”
Dear Kyle,
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.