War politics

The politics of war are changing significantly on Capitol Hill and beyond the Washington Beltway.

Years ago, the debate was a partisan one, by and large; Republicans were for the Iraq war and the subsequent troop surge, and Democrats were opposed.

{mosads}In his unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) famously said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [war funding bill] before I voted against it.”

Barack Obama learned from Kerry’s mistakes and was very clear about his war plans. He promised to continue the Afghanistan war and end the Iraq war.

In large part because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and he spoke out against it, Obama won the Democratic presidential primary. 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defended the conflict in Iraq during the general-election race while Obama criticized it, and committed to continuing the Afghanistan war. He subsequently won the White House.

Fast-forward two years. More members on both sides of the aisle are questioning what the mission in Afghanistan is, especially now that it has been waged longer than the Vietnam War. 

Obama has committed to draw down troops in Afghanistan this summer, though it is unclear how many. Still, his administration has said the U.S. will be in Afghanistan through 2014, if not longer. That suggests that the anti-war candidate might keep troops in Afghanistan for as long as his predecessor.

In a clear sign that the debate is changing among Republicans, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), who is inching toward a presidential run, recently questioned the merits of the Afghanistan war and its costs. 

Late last month, Obama resisted pressure from Republicans in Congress, including McCain, to act quickly to help the rebels in Libya.

Instead, he worked with allies in the international community to unite behind a United Nations resolution. Despite concerns from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a no-fly zone was quickly, and easily, established in Libya. 

Critics on the left are blasting Obama, calling this his third war.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), pressed on spending by his Tea Party freshmen, has urged Obama to define the mission in Libya.

The presidency is a tough job; Obama was excoriated for inaction in Libya, and then for action.

Yet the concerns being raised are valid. The U.S. and its allies took action because Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was slaughtering his own people. But Obama and Pentagon leaders say Gadhafi is not a target. 

The suggestion appears to be that allied actions are being undertaken to remove the tyrant’s overwhelming advantage over the rebels, not to remove Gadhafi but to give the rebels a chance of removing him themselves. But while having Libyans overthrow the despot would be pleasing, and undoubtedly more acceptable throughout the Muslim world, creating a sort of parity between the two warring sides might only produce stalemate, partition, protracted civil war — or all three.

These mixed messages have raised eyebrows in Congress.

Everyone agrees that a war needs a clear purpose and goal. Most people agree that Gadhafi should go. But no one seems sure who would replace him, or whether, ironically, allied action of this limited nature actually could end with the dictator enjoying his fifth decade in power.

Debate on foreign conflicts has suddenly become much more nuanced than it used to be.