The most bizarre defense of Obama’s escalation is also one of the most common: since he promised during the campaign to escalate in Afghanistan, it’s unfair to criticize him for it now — as though policies which are advocated during a campaign are subsequently immunized from criticism. For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo opened, and privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the ground that he promised to do them during the campaign? I highly doubt it.
It’s not “bizarre” because it’s not a defense of Obama’s escalation — it’s a defense of Obama against the charge that he’s somehow backing away from “change,” when in fact he made his Afghanistan position crystal clear during the campaign. Of course it doesn’t insulate his Afghan policy from criticism. Go ahead, criticize away, and let’s judge the critiques on the merits.
But don’t charge that Obama, after being carried to victory by the base, somehow owes progressives an Afghanistan withdrawal. This is bollocks. And Greenwald’s Bush analogy makes no sense.
3 Comments
Greenwald's analogy might make sense, but for one thing: When Bush made all those promises, I didn't vote for him. Indeed, they were among the very reasons I didn't vote for him. So I was criticizing him for taking actions for which I withheld my consent at the ballot box.
But the simple fact is, if you knew on Election Day that Obama planned to escalate in Afghanistan and voted for him anyway, like it or not you were greenlighting that escalation plan.
So even if what Greenwald talks about is a defense of Obama's escalation, it's a valid defense. It's not that it's unfair to criticize him for keeping a campaign promise, it's that it's unfair to criticize him for something to which I gave my consent on Election Day.
I highly doubt that people with some knowledge of the international politics really believed Obama when he promised to withdraw units from Afghanistan. We all knew he couldn't afford to keep this promise without doing a mistake which could cost him much more in the and. I approve of his decision, but I also agree with the criticism – nobody should make a promise he's unable to keep.
Julie
Julie, I'm not sure what promise you're referring to. In Obama's Denver nomination speech he explicitly promised to "finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." He's following through on exactly that. The debate should be about the merits of that policy or lack thereof, not about "promises" that were never made.