Afghan Journal

Lifting the veil on conflict, culture and politics

U.S. mid-terms and the Afghan war

October 30, 2010

A sign directs voters to a District of Columbia polling place in Washington, October 26, 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed/FilesIt’s one of the biggest weeks in U.S. politics, with the mid-term elections to the Senate and the House of Representatives, and it may well eventually impact the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though it’s not been a campaign issue. If the Republicans win big, as everyone expects them to, what happens to President Barack Obama’s war strategy for the two countries, increasingly operating as two full-fledged theatres, rather than a conjoined Af-Pak mission?

Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations says given the Republicans’ solid support for the war in Afghanistan, a defeat may not be such a bad thing for Obama so far as his Afghan mission is concerned in the near term. Support and funding for the war could be enhanced if they gained control, which may not be the case if the Democrats, who have serious doubts about the mission, were to return. Big Republican gains will also signal to Afghanistan and Pakistan that America remained serious and committed to the region, despite a deteriorating security environment on both sides of the Durand Line.

Indeed the one big reason why the war hasn’t made it as a campaign issue is because of the schisms it has opened in the two parties. Democrats are silent because many oppose the war but don’t want to run on an anti-Obama platform. Most Republicans, on the other hand, support the war but now find themselves uncomfortably aligned with a Democratic president whose every other policy they are bitterly opposed to.

But this may not be the situation for long. First off, carrying the argument further,  many Republicans who support Obama’s decision to send additional troops don’t like the idea of setting out  a withdrawal date as the president did when announcing the surge.  They argue that the July 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of troops to begin sends the wrong signals to U.S. partners in the region who question Washington’s commitment, as well as further emboldens the insurgents to simply wait out the U.S. departure from the region. They are also more likely, reflexively, to oppose any truck with the Taliban; certainly not at this point when the insurgency is at its strongest. They would rather General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces, were given more time to pound the militants into coming to the negotiating table.  As Politico blog says :

For starters, Republicans would almost surely press President Barack Obama to loosen the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, as well as seek assurances that he would be willing to send in more troops if Gen. David Petraeus, his commander there, asks for them.

It quotes Republican strategist John Ullyot, a former staffer of the Armed Services Committee , as saying that putting deadlines on the mission is going to be a lot tougher to defend in a beefed-up Republican congress. “There is no question there will be a lot more pressure on the administration to give commanders as much time as they need; the summer deadline is going to be huge.”

Already, the administration has been insisting that no high-level talks with the insurgents are going on. On Friday, Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said while more Taliban foot soldiers were coming forward to lay down their arms, reports of peace talks were overblown. Official sources, though, say all parties in the conflict are considering ways to reach a political settlement, and have described cautious preliminary contacts between the Taliban and the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

While broader support for the war is assured, you can be sure that U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will be closely watching all civilian aid going to Afghanistan. They have grown increasingly sceptical of President Hamid Karzai’s inability or unwillingness to crack down on corruption and as the Congressional Quarterly reports the pressure on civilian aid programmes is likely to increase after the mid-terms. Already it says :

Lawmakers are slapping conditions on reconstruction funding, working to cut funding or threatening to block it altogether. Some are outright scornful about the ability of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government to hold the country together.

Across the border in Pakistan,  pressure from the U.S. Congress is expected to be just as intense both to fight America’s war on the Islamist militancy, as well as  to use the billions of dollars of aid  given to the country effectively. Last month at a hearing to confirm the new U.S. envoy to Pakistan, Republican senator James Risch asked  if there was any sense of appreciation in Pakistan of the amount of money and effort the United States had invested in the country to pull it back from the brink. “This government is going to borrow 41 cents out of every dollar it spends this year. I mean this … is a real sacrifice Americans are making. They’re sacrificing their children’s and grandchildren’s futures in order to build infrastructure in Pakistan.”

You can already hear voices urging the administration to hold Pakistan’s feet to the fire. Further aid must be made conditional to the administration fighting militancy according to a set of benchmarks, argues Ashley Tellis at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  Change the rules of the game to force Pakistan to stop supporting the groups that are helping the Afghan insurgency and plotting attacks elsewhere, he says.


If the Republicans make large gains, it by no means translates automatically into more support for the wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. There is the Tea Party movement to consider — and, when all the rhetoric and attempt to co-opt the movement are cast aside, what remains is intense citizen outrage about excessive government spending, corruption, manipulation of public opinion, and control by special interests. As Tea Partiers wake up to the fact that the biggest ‘discretionary’ expense of the government is U.S. militarism and the enforced Pax Americana, there will be increasing pressure on Republicans to end the wars.


@john Uebersax
Republicans had slowed down the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the USA, there has been a tendency for the USA leaders to start an adventure in a foreign land. George W went into Iraq for the kill, where his father had finished the job before, and Mr Obama decided to finish the unfinished job(so he thought)in afghanistan by sending additional troops. This would be Mr Obama’s legacy as the greatest blunder of all times.
On the domestic front he started a crusade for the health insurance at a time when people were loosing jobs and the consumer spending could not provide any support for the domestic economy.
The Tea Party people are promising to save the America, and this they have to, but the President still has two more years to go which are good enough to make the USA compületely bankrupt and to be declared a failed state.Neither China nor the Saudis can go on unlimitedly putting up the loans.

Rex Minor

Posted by rex Minor | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see