The Afghanistan conundrum

Newly elected presidents, especially Democrats, fear being portrayed as weak, and thus get rolled by the military into fighting unnecessary wars. JFK learned the lesson fast, after our fiasco in Cuba. LBJ, a brilliant politician, lost his presidency over his capitulation to military advisers. White House tapes record that LBJ knew we couldn’t “win” our war in Vietnam; but he was afraid to end the war and be perceived as a president who gave up. In worrying about losing his second term, he lost it.

President Obama has allowed himself to be talked into making the protracted Afghan war his war (not Charlie Wilson’s); and in doing so, he has repeated LBJ’s critical mistake. Our president studied the Vietnam experience before making his decision—but he didn’t learn its relevant lesson. Last year, the perceptive critic Gary Wills urged President Obama to be a one term president rather than prolonging an unwinnable war. “If it costs him the presidency, what other achievement can match it?” Wills asked rhetorically. “I would rather see him a one-term president than have him pass on another unwinnable war to the person who will follow him to office.”

Woodrow Wilson, our 28th president, is remembered for saying “If my reelection as President depends upon my getting into war, I don’t want to be President.” High minded as was his pronouncement, he soon was dragged into war, despite his fearing a useless slaughter to control the actions of others, his recent biographer, John Milton Cooper, Jr., chronicled.

I would turn around Wills’ premise by suggesting that using all his powers to stand up to the military, to push Congress, and to use the media to make the case for coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, is the best way for the president to ensure his second term. The best route to a second term is shifting priorities by getting out of these costly wars and focusing on creating jobs in America and balancing the budget. Paradoxically, if the president does the politically difficult, right thing, regardless of whether it seems to hurt his reelection chances, he may have a better chance to be reelected. And, to complete the circle, if he is not reelected, he will have done the right thing. LBJ didn’t have that solace.

Ironically, in turning over the war in Afghanistan to General David Petraeus, President Obama may have anointed the one man who could beat him in the 2012 election. From George Washington to Ulysses Grant to Dwight Eisenhower, this country respects powerful generals and turns to them politically in times of national stress. If the Afghan war proves successful (by what standard, one might ask), General Petraeus comes home a hero; if it fails, he can complain that the Commander-in-Chief didn’t let him do what he needed to do to win. We always need to stay longer and up the ante in these situations, according to military experts. Our financial bankruptcy after years of this Afghan indulgence will set the scene for an impatient and fractious country to look for new leadership.

The country elected this smart and challenging man to take bold steps when they are correct, even if they are politically challenging. To change the political rules. The paradox in the present conundrum is that the most moral position, even if it is unpopular and politically risky, is the position that this country needs, and thus is the one which could be the most politically wise. One term or two, the president needs to get us out of unnecessary wars. If he demonstrates the power to do so, other good things will follow, including a second term.