Voters who strongly supported Obama for President will rally against their candidate when he makes his speech attempting in Bush-lite style to convince the American electorate to stay the course in Afghanistan.
Media reports show that the strongest support for an escalation in Afghanistan comes from either almost Republican Democrats within Obama’s party with strong ties to the Defense Industry and of course Republicans who see a win-win situation for their party as the Democrats enter the mid-term Congressional elections divided.
Twin Cities news reports that in President Barack Obama’s speech to the nation Tuesday, he must persuade supporters who thought they’d voted for an anti-war president to back a plan expected to roughly double the number of troops in Afghanistan from when he took office.
Fact of the matter, as apologists for any Obama decision will admit, is that the Obama campaign for President ran on a ticket to escalate war in Afghanistan, however those supporting Obama united to get him elected, initially focused on the domestic economy, but now that the focus is shifting to Afghanistan, and Democrats are even talking about finally raising taxes the pay off the war debt, the base of the Democratic party just may turn on their favored candidate.
This is a reality that concerns top Democratic leaders in Congress including Nancy Pelosi and has Republican leaders and their American Enterprise Insitute advisers foaming at the mouth anticipating a return to NeoCon power – dream on.
ROBERT L. HANAFIN
Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired
Editorial Board
VT News Network &
Our Troops News Ladder Increasing troops in Afghanistan will be a tough sale for Obama
Extract for original source – go to Twin Cities News Link for full article.
Obama’s rise as a national political figure was fueled by his early opposition to the war in Iraq, which distinguished him from primary foes who’d initially backed the invasion and which quickly won him the support of millions who had grown weary of that conflict. While he repeatedly talked on the campaign trail about directing more resources to the fight in Afghanistan, many of his supporters took that rhetoric primarily as a critique [and criticism] of President George W. Bush’s military priorities.
"It was an excellent campaign line for Obama to say, ‘We took our eye off Afghanistan and fought the wrong war in Iraq,’ " said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department South Asia specialist now affiliated with the Middle East Institute. "The implications of what he was saying I don’t think registered on people. … They didn’t see it."
"I don’t think there was a consciousness in the electorate that, if we elect Obama, we’re sending 50,000 troops to Afghanistan," said Kurt Volker of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "It wasn’t hidden, but it wasn’t evident to voters who were focused on other issues."
As Obama prepares to unveil his Afghan strategy, it’s his most loyal political supporters who need the most convincing. [And it is his most loyal political supporters who are going to hit the streets, and media in opposition with most of the American electorate behind them. Why? VT. Ed]
A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Wednesday [November 25 the day before Thanksgiving] showed more Americans support an escalation of the war than support a decrease in troop levels. But the survey shows support for sending more troops comes largely from Obama’s political foes – the Republican Party, American Enterprise Institute, and Fox News. VT. Ed]
Those who voted for Obama and who were most critical of President Bush’s failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan will naturally be critical to re-electing Democrats in Congress next year are deeply skeptical and in opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan. Regardless the President’s decision it is the Democrats in Congress who may pay the heavy price politically for that decision come mid-term elections unless the Obama administration can define victory or progress in Afghanistan that most voters can relate to as Democrats raise taxes to pay for the war.
The poll found:
• Fifty-seven percent of Democrats favor beginning a withdrawal, while ONLY 29 percent favored an increase in troop levels.
• Seventy-two percent of Republicans back Obama’s expected call for 30,000 or so additional troops; 17 percent want to start pulling out. [Confirmation that Republicans, including those in the Pentagon strongly support Obama continuing the failed foreign policy of George W. Bush. VT. Ed]
The White House has concluded that making a troop increase more palatable to Democrats means framing it in terms liberals are more comfortable with, as just one part of a much bigger strategy involving diplomatic, multinational and civilian aid efforts.
At the same time, Obama must reassure Democrats in Congress who worry that the war, now entering its ninth year, will or has become a [Vietnam/Iraq like] quagmire.
Many analysts say that if Obama can’t get most Democrats on board with a troop increase, the consequences could be politically serious both for the Democratic Party’s 2010 electoral prospects and the president’s broader agenda. [The pro-Peace movements understands this vulnerability of thier favored political party and must focus on hitting that vulnerability even if it means splitting the Democratic party and ensuring loses during the mid-term elections. However, focus must also be placed on third party or independent candidates at all level from city, to state, to national willing to end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. VT. Ed]
"I think it threatens his domestic agenda pretty substantially, unless he takes the people along with him," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas. [The pro-Peace movement must also focus on refusing to support Obama’s domestic agenda unless it is our self-interest to do so. VT. Ed]
"That’s what a lot of other Democrats like (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi are worried about right now. … He risks alienating large chunks of the Democratic Party." [The pro=Peace movement must make this a self fulfilling prophecy in order to end the occupation of Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan, especially if deploying more troops is a given. VT. Ed]
The danger is particularly acute for Democratic members of Congress who need a robust turnout from their core constituencies next November to stave off the midterm election losses the party in the White House usually suffers. [This is the key to ending the occupation of Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan threaten a boycott of the mid-term elections that will hit members of Congress the most, it is they who must fund any escalation an almost a Republican President makes. VT. Ed]
"War is an emotional issue," Buchanan said. "In the midterms especially, some of those people who are conflicted may sit on their hands. … All those things make it a sticky wicket for Obama." [My military family for one will definitely "sit on our hands" come the next mid-term Congressional elections, and we promise Barrack Obama a one term Presidency. VT. Ed]
The almost a Republican (ala Joe Lieberman) Democrats
Some lawmakers such as Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., are trying to sell wary Democrats on a troop increase by coupling it with a promise to raise taxes to pay for the additional cost, which could be on the order of $30 billion a year. [Congress nor the administration has NOT RAISED TAXES to pay for either the occupation of Iraq or escalation in Afghanistan since 9/11 2001, what makes any almost a Republican serious think raising taxes will make a difference in war debt let alone convince enough Democrats who are no shit Democrats, and thinkers, to go along with a Republican war policy? VT. Ed]
In the past, Obama has promised that all supplemental war funding would be offset with budget cuts or revenue increases. However, the White House seems to be giving a chilly reception to the idea of a broad-based tax hike to pay for additional troops. [If a war is not worth raising taxes to pay for it, than just as with the draft, no war is worth wasting precious dollars and lives on. VT. Ed]
If the Obama SURGE focuses at first on limited areas in Afghanistan, such as the Kandahar region, nervous members of Congress could be able to point to some progress on the ground before they face voters next November. "By the middle of next year, we ought to be able to see something for our effort," Weinbaum said. [This confirms that both Democrats and Republicans are gambling on their own political futures and the poker chips are our troops and military families. VT. Ed]
However, one analyst of public sentiment in wartime WARNED that any progress is likely to be accompanied by an increase in U.S. casualties. [Thus the poker chips pay the ultimate prices for any politician dealt a bad poker hand. VT. Ed]
"If (Obama’s) going to be more aggressive militarily, it means more Americans are going to die and that’s the thing that moves public opinion more than anything else," said John Mueller, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. [We have to disagree, the American electorate has yet to be moved nor motivated by that which they cannot or have not been allowed to relate to until recently. It would be the combination of fiscal cost (that which the American electorate CAN RELATE TO and more Americans dying that we pray will finally force voters to connect the dots and sit the next election out. VT. Ed]
Professor Mueller said that [ala Vietnam] once Americans give up on a war, it’s difficult to get them back on board – even when there’s compelling evidence of a turnaround on the ground.
"Once people are turned off on a war, they tend to stay turned off," he said.
"That’s what happened in [Vietnam and] Iraq. Even when it became clear that the war was decidedly going better, [even without a national draft. VT. Ed] the numbers of people who supported it [the war(s) didn’t move much."
SOURCE: Increasing troops in Afghanistan will be a tough sale for Obama
Readers are more than welcome to use the articles I’ve posted on Veterans Today, I’ve had to take a break from VT as Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Editor and staff writer due to personal medical reasons in our military family that take away too much time needed to properly express future stories or respond to readers in a timely manner.
My association with VT since its founding in 2004 has been a very rewarding experience for me.
Retired from both the Air Force and Civil Service. Went in the regular Army at 17 during Vietnam (1968), stayed in the Army Reserve to complete my eight year commitment in 1976. Served in Air Defense Artillery, and a Mechanized Infantry Division (4MID) at Fort Carson, Co. Used the GI Bill to go to college, worked full time at the VA, and non-scholarship Air Force 2-Year ROTC program for prior service military. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1977. Served as a Military Intelligence Officer from 1977 to 1994. Upon retirement I entered retail drugstore management training with Safeway Drugs Stores in California. Retail Sales Management was not my cup of tea, so I applied my former U.S. Civil Service status with the VA to get my foot in the door at the Justice Department, and later Department of the Navy retiring with disability from the Civil Service in 2000.
I’ve been with Veterans Today since the site originated. I’m now on the Editorial Board. I was also on the Editorial Board of Our Troops News Ladder another progressive leaning Veterans and Military Family news clearing house.
I remain married for over 45 years. I am both a Vietnam Era and Gulf War Veteran. I served on Okinawa and Fort Carson, Colorado during Vietnam and in the Office of the Air Force Inspector General at Norton AFB, CA during Desert Storm. I retired from the Air Force in 1994 having worked on the Air Staff and Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
