Why we will not leave Afghanistan

Writing in Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer argues that we cannot win in Afghanistan, just as we could not win in Viet Nam, and that Obama will decide to escalate instead of withdraw for political reasons, just as Lyndon Johnson did in 1965.

As he says, Republicans claimed that we were on the verge of victory in Viet Nam when the Democrats in Congress bowed to the anti-war sentiment in the country and undermined the almost certain victory. However, Mearsheimer disputes that, saying that even with massive escalation of U.S. air power, at best we might have continued indefinitely in a stalemate.

Further, he argues, that

But even if success was at hand in Vietnam and the United States could in the near future win quickly in Afghanistan, there is a second and more important flaw in the Republican narrative: Victory is inconsequential. . . . The United States suffered a clear defeat when South Vietnam collapsed in 1975, but it hardly affected America's position in the global balance of power.
. . . .
In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, it simply does not matter whether the United States wins or loses. It makes no sense for the Obama administration to expend more blood and treasure to vanquish the Taliban. The United States should accept defeat and immediately begin to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.

Of course, President Obama will never do such a thing. Instead, he will increase the American commitment to Afghanistan, just as Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam in 1965. The driving force in both cases is domestic politics. Johnson felt that he had to escalate the fight in Vietnam because otherwise the Republicans would lambaste him for "losing Vietnam," the same way they accused President Harry Truman of "losing China" in the late 1940s.

Obama and his fellow Democrats know full well that if the United States walks away from Afghanistan now, the Republicans will accuse them of capitulating to terrorism and undermining our security. And this charge will be leveled at them for decades to come, harming Democrats at the polls come election time. The Democrats have no intention of letting that happen.

The United States is in Afghanistan for the long haul. As was the case in Vietnam, more American soldiers and many more civilians are going to die in Afghanistan. And for no good reason.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/node/68820?page=0,0

I believe Mearsheimer is right on all counts. It is a terrible dilemma, and I am glad that Barack Obama is the one making the decision, not me. Although I want us to get out, it is not dishonorable to consider the political angle. Republicans would use it against the Democrats, and they probably would take back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. And look who we might then have in charge.

If it were an Eisenhower or even a Nixon (when he was not being a crook) that might be preferable to the continued bloodshed. But do we really want to risk turning over government to the right wing fringe?

Everything in me wants to cry out: no more war! But my head also says: it would be a disaster for the current Republican party to be back in control. Could Obama, with his great oratorical skills, convince the American people that getting out is the better course? Would they listen to him more than to Beck and Limbaugh?

Perhaps he could have done it last spring; but now, on the ropes over health care and the economy, he could not survive charges of "surrendering to the terrorists." It's not just Obama's political survival; it would mean putting the Republicans back in charge.

And that could be worse than staying in Afghanistan.

Ralph