Barack Obama clearly did not get a "bump" -- or a "dump" -- from his overseas trip. What his supporters may not have focused on is that he means to be, like George Bush, another American wartime president.
"This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan," he said in his Berlin speech. "No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan.
"But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done."
He's right, of course. The "central front" in the war on terrorism -- along with platoons of terrorists, intelligence agencies report -- has moved back from Iraq to Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan.
But Obama -- and his fellow Democrats, especially -- may not appreciate how difficult a task it will be to "rout the terrorists ... and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets."
If the going gets rough in Afghanistan, will a party that wanted to pull out of the Iraq "quagmire" at the first sign of trouble really back President Obama as he wages war, or will Democrats fracture as they
did over the Vietnam War 40 years ago?
A Gallup Poll last week showed signs of potential trouble. While Americans generally believe -- by a margin of 68 percent to 28 percent -- that it was correct for the United States to send troops to Afghanistan, a full 41 percent of Democrats believe it was a mistake.
Only 55 percent of Democrats believe it was the correct move, as compared with 88 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents.
Almost certainly, Democrats will heavily dominate Congress next year. They -- and Obama, too -- have extensive domestic priorities to meet and will face a huge budget deficit at the outset. Will they want another war to dominate their agenda?
It's not clear how Obama means to "rout" the terrorists. Certainly, the 10,000 U.S. troops he wants to add to NATO's current total of 62,000 (including 32,000 U.S.) will not be enough to control Afghanistan, which even 120,000 Soviet troops could not do.
Moreover, Obama's determination to continue Bush's "war" on terror conflicts with liberal Democratic notions -- backed up by a RAND study this week -- that the antiterror effort should be conducted less on a military basis and more with intelligence "soft power" and police work.
|
