Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Nicely done, Kevin | Main | Trip to Ottawa »

Monday, March 05, 2007

If the Democrats win in 2008, they will pull out - of Afghanistan

Cross-posted from China e-Lobby

This will likely be the most controversial post I have written to date; to the extent that the left (and other Democrats) see it at all, they'll likely respond with vituperative outrage. However, I genuinely believe (and in my view, I have good reason to believe) that if a Democrat is elected president next year, (s)he will cut short the war in Afghanistan by pulling American forces out before the Taliban and al Qaeda are defeated.

If I am right about this, it should permanently put to rest the notion slowly seeping into the discussion on the right that perhaps, just perhaps, the country would be better off if the Democrats won in 2008. The argument (best presented but not endorsed by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online) goes something like this: the only way the Democrats will understand the depth of the "war on terror" (as followers of this space know, I prefer calling it the Wahhabist-Ba'athist-Khomeinist War) is if they are handed the reigns and forced to "take ownership" of it. The problem with that analysis is that it assumes the Democrats and the left want ownership of the war, something that I simply do not see. In fact, what I see of the Democrats and the political landscape tells me they'll respond by cutting the war short as soon as possible.

Here are my reasons.

Support for the liberation of Afghanistan is far weaker in America than we realize: The conventional wisdom holds that all Americans support the war in Afghanistan. As usual, conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, a Washington Post pollster asked the following question as past of its survey: "Thinking now about Afghanistan, all in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, or not?" The Yes/No split was 56-41. Forty-one percent of Americans now oppose America's military presence in Afghanistan.

I know, I know, we who support the Iraq war would love a 56-41 split. The last time we had that was January of 2004. Ominously, buy the end of that year, the numbers had flipped (42-56), and the Yes side never came near 50% again. The Taliban are already plotting a spring offensive to demoralize our allies and our voters, hoping to copy the political success of the Iraqi terrorists.

More to the point, odds are the overwhelming majority of this 41% will support the Democratic candidate in 2008 (whoever that may be), and should said Democrat win, the political pressure will be quite strong on the Democrat to pull out of Afghanistan and wash our hands of the entire W-B-K War - and that won't be the only place from where the Democratic President will feel that pressure.

Support for the liberation of Afghanistan is far weaker among our allies than we realize: There is a lot of talk about NATO being united on the Afghan mission. It's not true. Of all the NATO allies, only four: the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, have authorized their troops to do any fighting in Afghanistan. Every other military force is restricted to behind-the-line work by their governments. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is already shifting left, Britain will soon follow with the exit of Tony Blair, and Australia (the only non-NATO nation with a fighting force in Afghanistan) may replace John Howard with a left-wing opposition (Howard's coalition trail in the polls by double-digits - AAP via Epoch Times). Canada is, for now, the only nation that appears political set for the long haul in Afghanistan, and that's only if current trends continue up there.

Meanwhile, European left-wing parties (including the governments of Spain and Italy) are less than happy about being in Afghanistan at all (Italy's government nearly collapsed after left-wingers protested its country's continued presence there, even without fighting). The Spanish and Italian government's were elected solely on the basis of Iraq; there was little if any reference to Afghanistan in their campaigns. That hasn't stopped them from trying to cut and run now.

Pakistan no longer has any interest in supporting the war against the Taliban: The fact is, Pakistan is more interested in keeping Afghanistan from becoming an ally of India than defeating the Taliban. As it was arresting one Taliban leader (Shotgun), it was making deals with another (Asia Times).

Therefore, the new Democratic president will face a newly emboldened base, several foreign leaders, and an ally in Central Asia telling him/her the same thing: wrap up Afghanistan, and do it soon. Will (s)he listen to them? I think (s)he will, and here's why.

Pakistan's influence in Washington: Beginning in the late 1960's, when Richard Nixon started using Pakistan as a conduit to Mao Zedong, Pakistani leaders have always been able to count on more friends in Washington than India could. Paksitan's role in helping the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sealed the deal in the 1980's. To this day, Pervez Musharraf is given slack almost no other American ally has, and he sees as his enemies not the Islamists, but the secular democrats he bounced in 1999.

Part of the problem here is the refusal to come to terms about Pakistan's ally and enabler: Communist China. So long as the Communist regime is considered a "friend," it's that much harder to come to terms about Pakistan. For Republicans, the presence of al Qaeda is enough to keep the focus on defeating them. I'm not sure the Democrats will feel the same impulse from their political base; it will be far easier to listen to Pakistan's friends in the State Department and the weak Europeans who have fought so little anyway.

The arguments against the Iraq war can be easily grafted onto Afghanistan: After all, the Taliban were fighting on several fronts, including one front against an Iran-backed Shia group. Moreover, the Taliban has an untouchable safe zone in Pakistan, much like the terrorists have in Syria, only worse. Meanwhile, the Pashtuns in Afghanistan are playing the same cards as the Sunnis in Iraq, and although few Pashtuns actually like the Taliban, it hasn't stopped the group from claiming the Pashtun cause, and if the Democrats can be fooled into believing the Sunnis hate us because of al Qaeda in Iraq, they can be fooled by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The nature of the Democratic front-runners: At this point, I can only see four potential Democratic nominees - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. Gore and Obama have no involvement in the reaction to 9/11/01, given them the perfect opportunity to drop Afghanistan quickly. Edwards and Clinton supported the Afghan war, but both have managed to worm their way out of their Iraq vote (Edwards with far more success), and could probably repeat the performance in re Afghanistan.

George W. Bush is the perfect scapegoat: There is already talk about how the rest of the world will react to a new president, and while most of the speculation is wrong (Bush remains popular in India and Russia, why these large nations don't count is a mystery to me), the entire European elite will certainly welcome a Democrat. However, they will also move very quickly to lean heavily on said Democrat to call Afghanistan and Iraq "Bush's Wars," and end them on that basis. Again, given the domestic pressure the Democrat will be facing, and the perfect opportunity to make a "clean break" with Bush; I don't see a Democrat resisting this temptation.

Of course, it won't be called a pullout. The new Democratic Administration will call for a UN peacekeeping force to replace the Americans and allies, and odds are it will be approved quickly by the Security Council (Russia and Communist China will have their own reasons for supporting it - namely the hope they can fill up the vacuum we will leave behind). There will be talk over President Bush "overreacting" to 9/11, how the Democrats would never have leaned so hard if they were in control; how Bush should have prevented 9/11 in the first place, etc., etc., etc. There may even be a Church Committee redux, with investigations and lurid charges about the mistakes of the Bush Administration, and of course, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will have a new lease on life.

I know, I know, no single Democrat is even talking about an Afghan pullout, but no single Democratic leader was talking about an Iraqi pullout last year either. It was only after the new Congress was sworn in (and Joe Lieberman cast his vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader) that talk of troop caps, "slow bleeds," and withdrawal filled the airwaves.

The pieces are in place for an Afghanistan pullout, a return to glory for the Taliban, and a huge daily double (Iraq and Afghanistan) for al Qaeda. All they need is a Democrat in the White House. Will the American people give it to them?

Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 5, 2007 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If the Democrats win in 2008, they will pull out - of Afghanistan:


The Taliban and al-Qa'eda aren't being defeated now.
They aren't on the ropes and they aren't punch drunk.
They are fielding larger forces now than ever before and have an estimated 200,000 trained and equipped forces in their sanctuary known as Pakistan.

NATO has been fighting a War of Attrition and that was a recipe for defeat all along.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-05 3:18:57 PM

The worst thing about the situation is that the Islamofacists have a fifth column in USA. They use their influence in combination with the Talibans and Al Qaeda to bring some president who will work to appease the terrorists.

This is nothing really new. In UK in 1935, the appeasers were at work. UK was very lucky not to have been invaded by the nazis but it paid a stiff price for their policy of appeasement.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-03-05 3:23:14 PM

The US have already thrown in the towel; re the results of their last elections. A Dem president would simply speed up the process of defeat.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-03-05 4:27:39 PM

Suppose the US right now pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely. It would take about 10 days for a Muslim civil war to break out throughout the region. Saudi Arabia would hire the US Army to defend it. Iran would take over Syria and Iraq, and spend thousands upon thousands of lives fighting an internal war.

Pakistan and Israel would form an alliance that would require nuclear attacks on any state that attacked either of them. Egypt would collapse.

In about 10 years or so, a peace of total exhaustion would break out, and the EU, the US and the old Commonwealth would send in the relief and reconstruction teams.

Grim scenario? Sure, but the present tinderbox makes the West pay the price for what is an internal Arab/Muslim war. Maybe we should back off and reserve our stremgth for the clean-up after the inevitable collapse of the Middle East.

Posted by: Patrick B | 2007-03-05 4:56:31 PM

"Pakistan and Israel would form an alliance that would require nuclear attacks on any state that attacked either of them."

"Grim scenario? Sure, but the present tinderbox makes the West pay the price for what is an internal Arab/Muslim war."
Posted by: Patrick B | 5-Mar-07 4:56:31 PM

Grim scenario, NO.
Bizarre fantasy, YES.

In what universe would the majority Wahhabi/Salafi Muslims of Pakistan form an alliance with the Jews they want to wipe off the face of the Earth?

Man you are so wrong.
The majority of Pakistanis are Pashtuns, like the Taliban, and yes Israel thinks most Goyim are all the same, but this scenario is totally fringe.

Sure the Iranian Shia are a threat to Israel but the Wahhabi/Salafi Muslims are more of a threat.

Iran threatens Israel because they want legitimacy in the majority Wahhabi/Salafi Muslim world.

If Israel has nuclear weapons they are for defense.
Israel has never admitted possessing them and likely never will.
Israel isn't going to form an alliance with the use of their possible nuclear weapons as part of the ante.

If Israel actually has nuclear weapons the specific use would be reserved solely for Israel's interest just as France's are.
The question of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is part and parcel of their deterrent power.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-05 6:37:17 PM

The problem is Pakistan. Answer - Withdraw from Iraq and attack Pakistan.

Posted by: sam | 2007-03-06 2:11:48 PM

If the US got out of the middle east completely (note: completely) Al Qaeda would have little appeal.

Posted by: exile | 2007-03-06 2:38:41 PM

Why would that be, exile.
Please elaborate. Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-06 2:43:49 PM

This analysis seems dead wrong to me. Afghanistan provides democrats with the perfect foil to Iraq--they can withdraw from "Bush's failed project" without appearing weak on defense. This was Kerry's strategy--a 'wiser and stronger' foreign policy--and the 2008 front runners will use the same playbook. Democrats have invested to much in casting Afghanistan as the 'right war' (in contrast to the Iraq blunder) to abandon the mission. We are likely to see a greater commitment to Afghanistan from the US in coming years (though probably not from our allies...)

Moreover, Afghanistan has a very low salience to Americans--poll after poll suggests it is not viewed as a top priority for the public at large. As a result, decisions will be guided by the party's foreign policy elites rather than by populist sentiment (even if it does eventually swing toward favoring a pullout.)

-Carl Robichaud (www.AfghanistanWatch.org )

Posted by: Carl Robichaud | 2007-03-06 2:55:49 PM

The Dems have always been known as the "cut and run" party. The Americans have always been the poorest fighters on earth, if the fighting gets hot then they retreat and run like rabbits. The biggest problem they have, is their media, which is the most negative bunch on Earth. The media expect the war should be won in 1 week, and if it isn't then it was a mistake. Hollywood is the only place that makes it look like the Americans have lived up to their commitment.I hope the Afghans and Iraqis aren't banking on the Americans to support them.Yes, we should be bombing Pakistan, and flattening the mountains where the terrorists are hiding out.

Posted by: Freedom of speech | 2007-03-08 11:31:25 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.