Iraq And Afghanistan: Why The National Security Focus Won't Work For Republicans Part II

by DemFromCT

So here's an interesting thing. In Part I, we looked at trust vs fear and pointed out that a President with historically low poll numbers is in no position to turn to the camera and say, "yeah I torture and use secret prisons, but it's best for the country, trust me. If Congress doesn't allow me, you're going to die." As far as the terms of the debate, the too-credulous press once again got it wrong. From yesterday's WaPo:

With a series of forceful speeches on terrorism and a dramatic announcement that he has sent top-tier terrorism suspects to the Guantanamo Bay prison, President Bush this week has demonstrated anew the power of even a weakened commander in chief to set the terms of national debate...

But that's not so. Bush wanted this to be a debate between himself and Democrats. The trouble is, it's Republicans and the military who say, wait a minute.

President Bush's campaign to sharply limit the courtroom rights of suspected terrorists ran into opposition yesterday from key Republican senators and even top uniformed military lawyers, who said it would violate basic principles of justice.

The military lawyers told a House panel that they particularly object to Bush's bid to allow terrorism suspects to be convicted on secret evidence that is withheld from the defendants, an objection embraced by at least three prominent members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And as far as the skeptical public goes,

A recent Gallup panel survey finds that the Iraq war continues to surpass all other issues by a wide margin when Americans are asked what should be the government's top priority.

In the Aug. 28-31 survey, 51% of Americans say the war in Iraq should be the top priority for "the president and Congress to deal with at this time." No other issue is mentioned with near this frequency; the next group of issues are only mentioned by 12%-16% of Americans, and include the economy, energy and gas prices, healthcare, and immigration.

Concerns about terrorism are also evident in the poll, as 9% mention terrorism specifically and another 7% say national security. Gallup conducted the poll near the time of the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and 7% mentioned natural disaster relief as a top government priority.

Even if Bush's speechs quintuuple the national security number (i.e., completely mobilizes his base), Iraq dominates. Every other issue is a R loser as well, btw. But that number won't quintuple in support of the Bush record if the courts and the Republican Senate oppose his wiretapping and the Republicans and the military oppose his rendition plans.

In fact, it has gotten to the point that even the wingnut pundits like Charles Krauthammer recognize that Iraq is a civil war ( a key recognition, say the opinion experts; see this post for more) no matter how Bush denies it. But the sleeper for why Bush's national security creds won't win the day is Afghanistan. That's where Osama gathered Al Queda and organized 9-11. That's where a resurgent Taliban on Bush's watch show he can't get the job done, even when he breaks the law.

ACROSS a wide swathe of southern and south-eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban have never looked stronger since they were driven from power by an American-backed alliance in November 2001. And the government of President Hamid Karzai has never looked weaker, controlling only the towns and, during daylight hours, the main roads. The Taliban are not in a position to unseat the government and win the war; not while Western troops remain. Last February, however, General Michael Maples, director of America's Defence Intelligence Agency, told Congress that the Taliban insurgency is growing and presents a greater threat to the Afghan central government's authority than at any point since America's victory.

Contributing to the deep unease about security, and even more insidious, is the existence of a criminal mafia largely funded by the multi-billion dollar drugs trade, whose activities are made easy by endemic corruption. The fact that in many cases the drugs barons hold senior public office discredits the government and its international backers.

I hope to have more from the political scientists and opinion experts this weekend. But it's clear that the Iraq civil war and the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan (i.e. reality on the ground) coupled with resistance from the military and Republicans to Bush's unlawful expansion of executive power are why Bush's gambit will fail. And in failing, he opens his whole approach to question (if Iraq is failing and the Taliban are resurgent, Bush is losing three wars simultaneously).

And that is the point. This election is a referendum on George W Bush and his war failures. That's why Republicans are going to lose, and shock and awe from the DC press corps won't change that one bit.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

Iraq keeps getting worse too, as WaPo reports that Baghdad is planning a big expansion of its morgue to handle 250 bodies a day. Assuming each body stays a few days, that would probably cover 2,500 fatalities a month. Last month's toll was revised to 1,536.

On Afghanistan, I read that this year's poppy crop is enough to supply 130% of the world demand, but most of it goes to Europe and Asia. They can't be happy. Between all the narco money sloshing around that country and the deal between the Pakistanis and the Taliban/al Qaeda, things are really going backwards for Bush.

All of which highlights the Dems' best issue--whatever chaos would result from our leaving Iraq, chaos will also result from our staying there and failing to focus on other parts of the world, to say nothing of problems in our own country. Voters instinctively know that, but the Dems can help them see their choices more clearly.

[DemFromCT]

re afghanistan see:

http://cfr.org/publication/10273/ from the Council On Foreign Relations.

[DemFromCT]

re the general theme:

The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

Democrats, meanwhile, said they were inclined to go along with Senate Republicans drafting an alternative to the White House plan, one that would allow defendants more rights. That left Republicans to argue among themselves about what the tribunals would look like and threatened to rob the issue of the political momentum the White House hoped it would provide going into the closely fought midterm elections.

if you have been reading my posts, that's not a surprise.

[DemFromCT]

Hereh's the link.

[Jodi]

Afghanistan and Iraq are different as I have been told by people that have been there. The so called Taliban are not local people but are from Pakistan and yes they turn out a lot of them in those religious schools over there. It is hard to do anything about the source without getting Pakistan mad at us and we need them for other reasons.
Yes the Afghanistan government is not very good. In fact I would agree that democracy doesn't play very well anywhere in the MidEast. It is like an opi

As a practical point we should have put a King or Emir or a dictator in power, and we would have better results. Like Saudi Arabia, QAR, Egypt and the like.

But the American people wouldn't stand for a "dictator" being put in power, while they will embrace the idea of a democracy like some narcotic induced dream.

And yes our failure of competency due to greed, after the first 4 weeks in Iraq, has set up resurgence of bad stuff all over the world.