send to a friend | print | comment

Afghan redux (Updated)

Last week, I ended my post about Arlen Specter’s position on the Afghan war by openly wondering what his reaction would be to the president’s speech. I wrote:

“Will Specter be ‘persuaded’ by the president’s rationale, helping ‘move’ public opinion along with his own shifting position? Or will he really play the contrarian, making a public break with what will arguably be the biggest national security decision yet made during the Obama presidency?”

Within hours of the president’s speech, Specter provided an answer.  As reported on pa2010.com, Specter reaffirmed his position, releasing a statement saying he was “not persuaded” by the president’s rationale for sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

As expected, the president’s position has sparked a fierce debate among Americans on both the right and the left. Many conservatives didn’t think the speech went far enough to assure American is “in it to win it,” expressing dismay with the Obama’s avowed 18 month timetable to begin a drawdown. On the other hand, a chorus of liberals (including mainstream thinkers like Thomas Friedman) seriously questioned the president’s decision, worrying that escalation of the conflict will be a failure which will drag our country further into an expensive morass we cannot afford.

These questions will undoubtedly be a source for much debate over the coming months, and the success or failure of the Afghan mission—clearly a war Obama has taken overship of —will have a significant impact on the political future of the president.

For The In-Specter’s purposes, however, what’s almost (and perhaps even more) interesting about Arlen Specter’s position is that, so far, it has been consistent in opposing troop increases, even when it puts him publicly at odds with the White House. This political situation is very delicate. Specter has positioned himself as a critic of both the president and Joe Sestak on this policy on what is an essentially populist position at this time of economic challenges.

In a strange turn of events, he and Sestak have taken mirror positions on the Iraq and Afghan wars. During the Iraq war debates, Sestak was an advocate for timetables and troop withdrawl, while Specter marched in lockstep support of President Bush’s continued fight there and against timetables (see clarification at bottom). Now, Sestak is the one supporting the president’s mission in Afghanistan and questioning the wisdom of timetables, while Specter is the one urging restraint.

Taken at face value, these inconsistencies do not flatter either candidate. By supporting the Afghan troop increases, Sestak raises the ire of progressives who see him as the liberal leader that will unflaggingly take their side in the Senate. Meanwhile, by opposing the Afghan plan, Specter lends credence to the story line that he will do and say anything to ingratiate himself with the Democratic base in order to win the primary.

These are simplistic readings of both candidates’ positions. I have no doubt that each of them has good-faith reasons for taking the positions they are taking. But often in politics, perception is reality, and from my perspective, the political takeaway is not particularly productive for either man on this issue. Perhaps this speaks more to what a political football the entire Afghan conflict has become more than to anything specific about either of their individual politics.

UPDATE: Senator Specter’s office has objected to my characterization of him as having “marched in lockstep” with President Bush on the War in Iraq. They have a point—to a limited extent.

It is true that by February 2007, Arlen Specter was taking a public position against the surge in Iraq. He was one of seven GOP senators to vote with Democrats for cloture on a non-binding resolution opposing the sending of more troops to that theater.  Therefore, I was (somewhat) wrong to characterize Specter as having marched in lockstep on the war.

It bears repeating that Specter voted to authorize the war in 2003, and he voted to keep the war going by opposing timetables and for war funding. By opposing the surge in Afghanistan, Specter acted consistently with his stance on increasing troop levels in the last several years, but overall, he has a decidedly mixed record on the use of military force to prosecute the “war on terror.”

December 4, 2009 at 3:03 pm

--Adam Schwartzbaum

comments

comments [1] | post a comment