Bill Kristol has an important editorial in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, in which he writes this:
As a decision looms for Obama on a new strategy requiring increased numbers of troops in Afghanistan, a Washington Post–ABC News poll last week discovered that “majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction of troop levels.” Conservatives and Republicans are far more supportive of the war—they “remain the war’s strongest backers”—and a majority of conservatives don’t merely support the war but say they approve of President Obama’s handling of it.
So much for charges of knee-jerk or unprincipled partisanship. Conservatives support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan. And despite temptations to make political hay out of a war that’s getting more unpopular, and despite doubts about Obama as commander in chief, Republican political leaders remain supportive of the war effort. They are urging Obama to commit himself unambiguously to win the war and to approve General Stanley McChrystal’s coming request for more troops. And in urging the administration to follow this course, they are willing to see the president get credit for doing the right thing.
In sum: In opposing Obamacare and supporting victory in Afghanistan , conservatives and Republicans are behaving as a loyal opposition. Those who were worried that partisanship would trump patriotism among conservatives, and that loathing of Obama would overcome loyalty to the country among Republicans, have so far been proved wrong. And those who were worried that timidity would prevent vigorous opposition where warranted in domestic policy have been so far proven wrong as well. The Republican party and the conservative movement are behaving in a way that can make Republicans and conservatives proud. . . . Luckily, President Obama seems to understand that the United States can and ought to win. And the Obama administration will benefit from the support of a loyal opposition if it chooses to surge to victory.
This strikes me as quite right. In standing with President Obama as he pursues success in Afghanistan, the Republican party and the conservative movement would be acting in an admirable way. When some liberals and Democrats succumbed to Bush Derangement Syndrome earlier this decade, it was an ugly and unfortunate thing. They opposed Bush reflexively, often with venom. Conservatives and Republicans can act in a far more responsible manner, in a way that puts country above narrow partisan aims. Whatever temptation there may be to weaken the president, this is not the issue on which to yield to said temptation. Obama is pursuing the right strategy. The road ahead will be long and hard. More troops will be required. But we are committed—and with the right strategy, victory over al-Qaeda and the Taliban is possible.
Kristol’s stand is in sharp contrast to George Will, who now believes the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting (see roughly the 18:00-minute mark in this video clip). Mr. Will was a strong advocate of the Iraq war before he became a strong critic of it. He is experiencing a similar reversal on Afghanistan.
As a general rule, it’s unwise to champion wars at the start and abandon them when difficulties arise. If that is one’s cast of mind, it is more responsible simply to oppose war at the outset: once the shooting and fighting begin, success and victory become paramount. The consequences of defeat in Afghanistan—for America and its prestige; for the people of Afghanistan; for the Taliban and al-Qaeda; and for Pakistan (which would question how long we would remain committed to it)—would be enormous and, for the United States, baleful. President Obama seems to understand this, and he deserves credit for it. Republicans should stand by his side if they seek to advance the national interest.
