The New York Times describes Joe Biden’s disaffection with the war in Afghanistan. He tells us he’s “deeply pessimistic” about our chances of victory. It seems as though the Iraq war was very troubling for Biden. (Which part — the refusal to carve up the country according to his recommendation or the success of the surge over his objections?)

You may not be reassured by John Kerry’s vote of confidence, attesting that Biden “understands this issue very, very deeply.” Very. Nor may you be bolstered by the knowledge that the Democratic strategists quoted in the piece disagree with Biden’s rejection of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation for a robust counterinsurgency plan:

[Bruce] Riedel [who led Obama's Afghanistan review] and others disagree with Mr. Biden. Mr. Riedel said the public could be persuaded to stick by the war with a well articulated argument by the president. And others, more harshly, argue that Mr. Biden’s judgment on foreign policy has often been off base.

They point out that he voted against the successful Persian Gulf war of 1991, voted for the Iraq invasion of 2003, proposed dividing Iraq into three sections in 2006 and opposed the additional troops credited by many with turning Iraq around in 2007.

When was the last time Biden was right about anything?” Thomas E. Ricks, a military writer, wrote in a blog on Sept. 24. Mr. Ricks is affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, a research organization founded by Democrats.

None of the military leaders agree with him either. (Gen. Dan McNeil: “It could lead to greater insecurity and instability in that region.”) What is very clear is that concerns over domestic policy are playing a pivotal role in Biden’s thinking:

Beyond Mr. Biden’s strategic concerns, some who participated in administration deliberations earlier this year said he was keenly aware that the country, and particularly his party’s liberal base, was growing tired of the war and might not accept many more years of extensive American commitment.

“I think a big part of it is, the vice president’s reading of the Democratic Party is this is not sustainable,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s review early this year. “That’s a part of the process that’s a legitimate question for a president — if I do this, can I sustain it with political support at home? That was the argument the vice president was making back in the winter.”

To whom then does the Times refer when it reports that Biden has ”attracted more company inside the White House” for his views? Well, one can suppose this would include those for whom concerns over domestic policy are paramount, for whom Iraq is not a story of the surge’s success but of the triumph of domestic opponents, and for whom the track record of the trio of McChrystal-Mullen-Petraeus counts for very little. Let’s hope that description doesn’t include the president.

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 at 6:52 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.