“Barack of Afpakia”

“Barack of Afpakia”

Today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in Afghanistan, he’ll have to fall back on the support of “Bush Republicans and neocons.” In its lead editorial, it says:

Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, “Why are we in Afghanistan?” The President’s friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to “Obama’s Vietnam.” Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support — to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.

The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that if President Obama pursues his plans for stepping up the war in Afghanistan, he’ll have to fall back on the support of “Bush Republicans and neocons.” In its lead editorial, it says:

Already, canaries on the left are asking a la columnist Richard Reeves, “Why are we in Afghanistan?” The President’s friends at Newsweek are helpfully referring to “Obama’s Vietnam.” Mr. Obama may find himself relying on some surprising people for wartime support — to wit, Bush Republicans and neocons.

The Journal takes note of the growing opposition on the left to an escalation:

The regents are on the ground and commanders are crafting new battle plans: President Obama is girding for a war surge in Afghanistan. Let’s hope he’s willing to see it through when his most stalwart supporters start to doubt the effort and rue the cost.

In fact, a 60-day review is underway in the White House, and decisions haven’t yet been set in stone about Obama’s Afghan policy. How many troops he adds, if any — whether the 10,000 or so that Obama proposed during the campaign or the 30,000 that the generals want — isn’t decided. There are calls for congressional hearings and oversight of Afghan policy. And bloggers, including yours truly, are raising questions and trying to create greater attention to the problem at Get Afghanistan Right.

Strangely, yesterday the White House announced that Obama will decide very soon about adding troops to the mix in Afghanistan. Said Robert Gibbs, Obama’s spokesman: “I would expect the presidential decision could come shortly.” Defense Secretary Gates, the Bush holdover, says that Obama will make a decision within “days.” But why would the president decide to add forces before the completion of the strategy review. As I wrote earlier, it’s a classic case of “Ready, Fire, Aim.”

There are already widespread media reports about ther arrival of 3,000 US forces in the area around Kabul. The Chicago Tribune headlines its report: “New US troops in Afghanistan see combat.” MSNBC’s headline is: “3,000 troops near Kabul mark start of surge.” Strictly speaking, these troops aren’t the result of a decision by Obama, only the continuation of a beefing-up that was planned in late 2008. As MSNBC’s report notes:

The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack Obama’s call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.

Be part of 160 years of confronting power 


Every day,
The Nation exposes the administration’s unchecked and reckless abuses of power through clear-eyed, uncompromising independent journalism—the kind of journalism that holds the powerful to account and helps build alternatives to the world we live in now. 

We have just the right people to confront this moment. Speaking on Democracy Now!, Nation DC Bureau chief Chris Lehmann translated the complex terms of the budget bill into the plain truth, describing it as “the single largest upward redistribution of wealth effectuated by any piece of legislation in our history.” In the pages of the June print issue and on The Nation Podcast, Jacob Silverman dove deep into how crypto has captured American campaign finance, revealing that it was the top donor in the 2024 elections as an industry and won nearly every race it supported.

This is all in addition to The Nation’s exceptional coverage of matters of war and peace, the courts, reproductive justice, climate, immigration, healthcare, and much more.

Our 160-year history of sounding the alarm on presidential overreach and the persecution of dissent has prepared us for this moment. 2025 marks a new chapter in this history, and we need you to be part of it.

We’re aiming to raise $20,000 during our June Fundraising Campaign to fund our change-making reporting and analysis. Stand for bold, independent journalism and donate to support The Nation today.

Onward, 

Katrina vanden Heuvel 
Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x