In my home county of Fairfax, Virginia the Democrat Sharon Bulova edged out the Republican Pat Herrity by 1200 votes in a race for the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Next to the Governor, it is arguably the most influential post in the state and has been a stepping stone to higher office (for Tom Davis who left the Congress this year and Gerry Connolly who succeeded him.)
Why does this matter? It is a stunningly close result in a county that has swung heavily Democratic in recent years and helped turn the state Democratic in U.S. Senate, gubernatorial and presidential elections. George W. Bush tied John Kerry in Fairfax. But by 2008 Barack Obama carried Fairfax 60-39%.
The difference seen last night was, in part, turnout. Approximately 15% for the local election compared to 74% for the 2008 presidential run. Nevertheless, 100,000 people turned out on a slightly snowy day and the Republican almost won. That’s a shocker.
Aside from turnout, of course, Barack Obama was not on the ballot. It makes a difference if the race is not “Obama vs. Eight Years of George Bush,” but rather: “Who’s going be the best local leader?”
Both political parties are reading the gubernatorial tea leaves. Republican Bob McDonnell needs to do better than 39% in Fairfax to win the state. A result in the mid or high 40s in Fairfax would virtually ensure a victory.
Larry Sabato, Virginia’s political guru, had this to say to me last night:
Bulova won but it should not have been this close. This is well over 100,000 votes. . . The desire for change is still out there–and this time it worked in favor of the GOP. Not a bad sign for McDonnell in November.
Indeed, there may be hope for the Republicans in the era of Obama. And the Democrats can’t bank on the extraordinary 2008 results to repeat themselves in off-year elections.
From what I read, the problem is along the Pakistan border and certain Pastun areas in the South. It is not Vietnam and it is not what the Soviets faced when they alienated most Afghanis. That does not mean it is going to be easy-and the effort must be in winning over Pastuns to support the government while fighting al Qaeda Arabs and Taliban Pastuns coming from Pakistan tribal areas.
On the other hand Michael Yon, who is trustworthy in a way that Celestine Bohlen is not, also agrees things are in a bad way in Afghanistan.
An interesting and useful report. It does seem like a good counterbalance to the “sky is falling” tone of much reporting on Afghanistan.
I remain concerned about three things. One, I don’t see that “we” (the US, NATO, Pakistan) are making headway against the Taliban’s ability to establish a relatively secure “rear” for itself. In fact, the developments seem to be the opposite, with Pakistan tacitly conceding a new Taliban outpost outside the tribal territories in the last couple of weeks.
While it’s true that it is important to secure villages (in Afghanistan), it is also true that the Taliban stays in the game as long as it has a secure rear. It is not being unduly pessimistic to at least point out that these features are similar to the problem in Vietnam, with the Viet Cong able to retreat to a secure rear until Nixon took office and began to change our strategy. The Taliban has no “Hanoi” sustaining it, but the porousness of Pakistan so far means it still has access to outside support.
Second, I hope the 17K, deployed to secure villages, will turn out to be enough. But Afghanistan made her name in the world with historical incidents in which tribal brigands overran outnumbered Western garrisons in isolated positions. We should not be complacent about this not happening again. It’s true that one local NATO base overrun would not, by itself, mean overall mission failure, but I doubt the skittish West has much tolerance right now for spectacular setbacks.
Finally, getting to that 400-600K number of security troops versus population is a different proposition in Afghanistan from the parallel on in Iraq. Iraq has been a region of settled agriculturalism and trade for millennia, and even its Western tribesmen have been under centralized rule — from the Ottoman Sultan before Baghdad — for as far back as their cultural consciousness goes.
Afghanistan is not like that and never has been. Truly having an effective, centrally-directed nationwide security force in Afghanistan would require a major cultural transformation. Something short of that might well be cobbled together, but we’ll need an “Awakening” there of some sort, tout de suite. I don’t have a sense that that is on the horizon. But I’d really like to hear about it, if someone knows of reason for hope.
I agree with Tom Paine’s point – both Mr. Boot and Michael Yon are very credible in their assessments. I’m sure many readers would be interested in their comparing notes.