Sometimes in politics, particularly in campaigns, parties get wedded to slogans — so wedded that no one stops to think about what they're saying, what the implications would be if their bumper stickers really guided policy when they took office.
Two examples: “Democrats for Afghanistan” and “Republicans for offshore drilling.”
Republicans are so obsessed with the notion that we can drill our way out of our energy crisis that offshore drilling has become their answer to every energy question. Yet anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuels, can see that clean renewable energy — wind, solar, nuclear and stuff we haven't yet invented — will be the next great global industry.
Republicans remind me of someone in 1980 arguing that we should put all our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric typewriters and forget about these things called “the PC” and “the Internet.” It's a strategy for making America a second-rate economy.
Democrats have their analog. For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq. I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly: “Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”
The Arab-Muslim failure
The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide.
The humiliation this cocktail produces is the real source of terrorism. The only way to address it is by changing the politics. Producing islands of decent and consensual government in Baghdad or Kabul or Islamabad would be a much more meaningful and lasting contribution to the war on terrorism than even killing bin Laden in his cave.
But it needs local partners. The reason the surge helped in Iraq is because Iraqis took the lead in confronting their own extremists — the Shiites in their areas, the Sunnis in theirs. That's very good news.
The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want.
Take 20 minutes and read the stunning article in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine by Thomas Schweich, a former top Bush counternarcotics official focused on Afghanistan, and dwell on his paragraph on Afghan president Hamid Karzai:
“Karzai was playing us like a fiddle: The U.S. would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvement; the U.S. and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai's friends could get rich off the drug trade; he could blame the West for his problems; and in 2009, he would be elected to a new term.”
Wrong incentive in Afghanistan
Then read Afghan expert Rory Stewart's July 17 Time magazine story from Kabul. “Our claims that Afghanistan is the ‘front line in the war on terror' and ‘failure is not an option' have convinced the Afghan government that we need it more than it needs us. The worse things become, the more assistance it seems to receive. This is not an incentive to reform.”
Before Democrats adopt “More Troops to Afghanistan” bumper sticker, they need to make sure it's a strategy for winning a war, not an election.