In August 2007, Sen. Barack Obama, fresh on the Presidential campaign trail, made an impassioned promise at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars to wage what he dubbed the war that has to be won.
The war is the war in Afghanistan.
He promised to quickly get out of Iraq, corral America’s allies in a partnership to wipe out the terrorists and their mass destructive weapons, end corruption, hold free elections, and insure a stable government in Afghanistan.
Two years later after a shell-out of $230 billion, and more than 700 U.S. dead, not one of these goals has been met.
There’s absolutely no guarantee that the request of $65 billion more, which is larger than the amount budgeted for Iraq; and the 17,000 more troops that will bring troop deployment in Afghanistan close to the number in Iraq, that Obama will be any closer to attaining the goal of zapping Al Qaeda and installing a corruption-free, democratic government there.
More Money and More Certain Fatalities
Military analysts, Pentagon insiders and the Joints Chiefs agree that to attain anything faintly close to Obama’s goals in Afghanistan, it will take a long hard slog that will cost billions more and take thousands more American troops (with increased casualties).
From his early speeches and now administration war policy set in stone, Obama is doggedly convinced that the Afghan war can be won, no matter the cost.
He’s willing to stake the credibility of his administration on that, no matter the price.
The price is high. A mid-August Washington Post-ABC News poll found that more Americans than ever say the war is pure folly. A majority of Obama’s most fervent backers say the same. These are the supporters whom Obama will need to beat back the mounting GOP counterinsurgency against him, make gains or at least cut potential Democratic losses in the mid-term elections in 2010, and to vigorously pump his shaky healthcare reform package.
With the grumbles from liberal Democrats and progressives getting louder about Obama’s betrayal and backsliding on his campaign promises, Afghanistan looms even larger as Obama and the Democratic Party’s Vietnam.
Vietnam is the dreaded word that Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Bush heard about Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq. It’s still the poster war for a failed, flawed, and hopelessly unwinnable war. The word has been a political tipping point for Presidents. It soured public opinion, drained the economy, fueled public dismay and anger, hampered passage of their domestic programs, fractured their party, and stirred big losses in Congress. Public shellshock over unpopular wars always redounds to the advantage of an incumbent challenging a President whose name is linked to the war. In 1952, Eisenhower ran on the pledge to visit Korea if elected. Though Ike never directly promised to bring the troops home if elected, the implicit commitment was that if elected, he’d do that.
He really didn’t have to make that promise; public weariness over the war was so great that Ike’s generic oath to visit the troops was enough to help sink Truman. In the public’s mind, the Korean War had become Truman’s war, more accurately, Truman’s failure to win the war.
Same Fate for Republicans
Similarly, Nixon learned from Ike. During the Presidential campaign against Democratic Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Nixon dropped careful, politically calculated hints of a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War if elected. Like Ike, he didn’t spell out in any real detail just what his secret plan was. And like Ike, he didn’t really have to.
Public revulsion over Vietnam, as in Korea, was so great that even the scintilla of a suggestion that Nixon could end the war aroused voter optimism for him and even greater fury against Humphrey who was widely seen as the caretaker of Johnson’s war (Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall and declined to run).
These two unpopular wars did in Truman and the Democrats in 1952, and President Johnson and the Democrats in 1968.
They also had a tsunami effect on Democratic elected officials. In both election years, the Democrats had a decisive edge over the Republicans in Congress, a wide body of public support and political prestige. Eisenhower, and later Nixon, painted Korea and Vietnam as a hopeless muddle that Truman and Humphrey (in tandem with Johnson) made a mess of. The two Democratic Presidents paid dearly for it, and Bush and the Republicans paid just as dearly for the Iraq quagmire.
Obama knows this history well.
He embedded that history into his Presidential campaign and continually reminded voters of the history of the Iraq war failure. Financially draining wars take a huge toll on the economy, drag down public morale and cause a steep plunge in American prestige internationally.
It also whips up greater anti-American sentiment.
Three failed and flawed wars and the public’s distaste for those wars helped topple two sitting Democratic Presidents, and hopelessly discredited a Republican President. The same public distaste for the Afghanistan war can easily make it Obama’s Vietnam. History has served notice on Obama of this peril.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political analyst. He has authored 10 books. His articles are published in newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his books have been published in other languages. He also is a social and political analyst, and he appears on such television programs as CNN, MSBC, NPR, the O'Reilly Show, American Urban Radio Network, and local Los Angeles television and radio stations as well. He is an associate editor at New America Media and a regular contributor to Black News.com, Alternet.com , BlackAmericaWeb.Com and the Huffington Post.com. He does a weekly commentary on KJLH Radio in Los Angeles.His weekly radio show, “The Hutchinson Report,” can be heard in Los Angeles on KTYM 1460 AM, and nationally on blogtalkradio.com
