Truesee's Daily Wonder

Truesee presents the weird, wild, wacky and world news of the day.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

 

How War Has Dropped Off The Political Landscape

From Outrage To Yawns: How War Has Dropped Off The Political Landscape

First Posted: 04- 8-10 06:05 PM   |   Updated: 04- 8-10 07:35 PM

 

Obama Afghanistan

Over the past few weeks, a slew of dispiriting news has accompanied U.S. efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Abstruse and bizarre comments from Afghan President Hamid Karzai has troubled America's diplomatic community; violence has followed the election of Iraqi president Iyad Allawi; and a leaked, two-year old video showing the killing of civilians in New Baghdad has raised fundamental questions about U.S. military policy.

It's the type of story sequence that two years ago would have produced howls in Congress and, perhaps, forms of demonstration outside the Beltway. Today, they've had a negligible fallout.

America's military campaign in Afghanistan and its drawdown in Iraq are hardly resonating on the political landscape. Lawmakers who came to office in recent years largely on an anti-war wave aren't touching the topic. Progressive groups -- who rallied feverishly against the Iraq War and opposed to further escalation in Afghanistan -- have ceded that debate is now static. Even those in charge of getting Democrats elected to Congress argue that there will be little friction within the party over the course the wars are taking.

"I think that people will understand what the stakes are going into November even if there may be disagreement with the president, whether it is on Afghanistan or some other foreign policy," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Mary.) who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "[T]here are clearly going to be Democrats who disagree with president's polices on Afghanistan. I still believe that they will be moved and motivated to come out to the polls for all the other issues that are at stake."

It's a remarkable reversal from where the state of play stood just a few years ago. Back in October 2007, 62 percent of respondents in a Gallup survey labeled the Iraq war as their top priority (more than double the next issue: health care). This past March, only five percent of respondents in a Bloomberg poll said that the war in Afghanistan was the most important issue facing the nation right now, trailing, among other items, spending and the deficit.

Not all polling numbers echo Bloomberg's. And the differences between Iraq in 2007 and Afghanistan in 2009-2010 are vast. But the fundamental message sent by the digits is shared among foreign policy and public opinion experts: war abroad is spurring yawns at home.

"It is out of the minds of voters because it is not on the news," said Mark Blumenthal, editor and publisher of Pollster.com. "It is not on the news they watch on television or the news they read in the papers or online. Couple that with the fact that the economy is a big deal and people are paying much less attention." 

How this development took place is owed to a confluence of contemporaneous events. As Blumenthal notes, a lagging recession has consumed the attention of much of the American public. A health care battle that lasted longer than a year has sucked the oxygen out of Congress. Finally, the country is suffering from a collective bit of war fatigue having watched the operation in Afghanistan progress for more than nine years; and that in Iraq, seven-plus.

And yet, the fact that Karzai's threats to join the Taliban haven't resonated further on the political stage -- or that a leaked 2007 video showing U.S. military personnel shooting a group of journalists and onlookers in Baghdad hasn't triggered larger howls of outrage -- can't, for some, be explained by these factors alone.

As it stands now, the groups that would traditionally express the loudest concern with such developments are choosing, instead, to stay largely muted. John Isaacs, the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said his organization remains frustrated with the situation in Afghanistan. But rather than work actively against the Obama administration in an effort to get troops out, they have instead invested their energies towards policy they actually think they can affect: nuclear weapons proliferation.

"We have a possibility of achieving positive things as opposed to working against negative events. We are trying to work for nuclear treaties and get weapons removed," Isaacs said. "It is more satisfying to get a positive accomplishment then to work against something we don't like."

Having a Democratic president in office has, indeed, changed the dynamics in fundamental and sometimes difficult ways for the progressive community. And it's not just simply because it presents more opportunity for collaboration than existed under George W. Bush. While a variety of organizations and lawmakers have come out against the surge of troops in Afghanistan, it's not clear if the message has disseminated to their constituencies or memberships. It certainly hasn't been picked up by the broader public. Stan Greenberg, a prominent pollster within the party, noted that Obama enjoys his highest approval ratings on Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the messaging he's tested, meanwhile show that "voters are very responsive where Democrats talked boldly about our foreign policy of taking it to the terrorists."

For a group like MoveOn.org this presents a bit of a depressing dilemma. The organization, which cut its teeth opposing the war in Iraq, came out publicly against Obama's plans to send more troops to Afghanistan in early December. Since then, little has been done to push their members on this front. While MoveOn's electoral roundups from 2006 and 2008 both tout the fact that they siphoned a strong anti-war sentiment into an electoral force, currently the group doesn't list Afghanistan on its website's home page.

"Our members still have a watchful eye on the events unfolding in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the combination of trust in President Obama's promise of diplomacy and withdrawal and an economy that means they are struggling to make ends meet at home has kept the wars from being a flash point for sustained political activism this past year," said Ilyse Hogue, the organization's communications director.

If having a Democratic president in power has created a kind of political paralysis for Democratic voters opposed to the Afghan surge, the situation on the ground has created legislative lethargy for lawmakers. House liberals, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), were able to force a vote this past month to cut off the funding for continued operations. It failed. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), meanwhile, is set to introduce legislation calling for a "flexible timetable" for a troop withdrawal. Beyond that and the occasional hearing the cupboard has been bare. And the main reason why, experts say, is because the options (at least right now) are limited.

"There isn't another leader we can turn to. I think that was apparent from the election," said Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies. "I suppose in principle the U.S has the option of providing less support to Karzai but at the moment that would be a perverse option because a strategy that includes increasing military strength rests on three legs: economic, military and political. And the latter two rest on having a government in place that can exercise leadership."

Of course, Feingold, Kucinich, and a whole host of other voices would disagree with such a premise. Why America has invested so much in Karzai -- or for that matter Afghanistan -- in the first place remains a mystery. Any further involvement, likewise, is money, time and lives wasted. But the voice that matters, in the end, is Obama's. And to this point he has neither been pushed, nor shown much willingness, to alter his plans.

"I think it is true that progressives do not want to take on this war partly because they think it will hurt their specific domestic causes, partly because they think it will be disloyal to Obama," said Robert Greenwald, the activist filmmaker who has spearheaded anti-war efforts. "In the end, not pushing Obama on this is one will be one of the greatest single mistakes progressive will make and will continue to make."


Comments:
Progressives always misrepresent (lie about) what they're for during the campaign, because people would never vote for them if they told the truth about what they are for. They act like "moderates" and conservatives in order to win the vote, and then remove the mask and become "progressives" (i.e., socialists).
When Bush left office the war news dropped from sight. They achieved their goal with war news daily during the Bush administration. Does anyone think the current administration would tolerate war news daily.
Whenever Democrats win the White House, monsterous events suddenly become non-issues. Homeless people, war in ____ (fill in the blank), poverty, (just to name a few "issues") disappear. They will re-appear when a Republican wins the White House.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives

March 2024   February 2024   January 2024   December 2023   November 2023   October 2023   September 2023   August 2023   July 2023   June 2023   May 2023   April 2023   March 2023   February 2023   January 2023   December 2022   November 2022   October 2022   September 2022   August 2022   July 2022   June 2022   May 2022   April 2022   March 2022   February 2022   January 2022   December 2021   November 2021   October 2021   September 2021   August 2021   July 2021   June 2021   May 2021   April 2021   March 2021   February 2021   January 2021   December 2020   November 2020   October 2020   September 2020   August 2020   July 2020   June 2020   May 2020   April 2020   March 2020   February 2020   January 2020   December 2019   November 2019   October 2019   September 2019   August 2019   July 2019   June 2019   May 2019   April 2019   March 2019   February 2019   January 2019   December 2018   November 2018   October 2018   September 2018   August 2018   July 2018   June 2018   May 2018   April 2018   March 2018   February 2018   January 2018   December 2017   November 2017   October 2017   September 2017   August 2017   July 2017   June 2017   May 2017   April 2017   March 2017   February 2017   January 2017   December 2016   November 2016   October 2016   September 2016   August 2016   July 2016   June 2016   May 2016   April 2016   March 2016   February 2016   January 2016   December 2015   November 2015   October 2015   September 2015   August 2015   July 2015   June 2015   May 2015   April 2015   March 2015   February 2015   January 2015   December 2014   November 2014   October 2014   September 2014   August 2014   July 2014   June 2014   May 2014   April 2014   March 2014   February 2014   January 2014   December 2013   November 2013   October 2013   September 2013   August 2013   July 2013   June 2013   May 2013   April 2013   March 2013   February 2013   January 2013   December 2012   November 2012   October 2012   September 2012   August 2012   July 2012   June 2012   May 2012   April 2012   March 2012   February 2012   January 2012   December 2011   November 2011   October 2011   September 2011   August 2011   July 2011   June 2011   May 2011   April 2011   March 2011   February 2011   January 2011   December 2010   November 2010   October 2010   September 2010   August 2010   July 2010   June 2010   May 2010   April 2010   March 2010   February 2010   January 2010   December 2009   November 2009   October 2009   September 2009   August 2009   July 2009   June 2009   May 2009   April 2009   March 2009   February 2009   January 2009   December 2008  

Powered by Lottery PostSyndicated RSS FeedSubscribe