How Disastrously Will Afghanistan War Split The Democratic Party?

Maine was first... again. As Bruce Gagnon wrote at AfterDowningStreet, the annual town hall meeting at beautiful Deer Isle, Maine voted to end the war in Afghanistan-- by a 2-1 margin. I wish yesterday was as smooth for me on the war front. Instead I spent the day arguing with progressive Democratic candidates about Afghanistan. They all want to support Obama. They all believe that because he's not Bush, Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is the right war. I shouldn't say, "all." We have some amazing leaders stepping up and talking out loud and clear against the occupation, like Marcy Winograd, Regina Thomas, Doug Tudor and Bill Hedrick, our next Blue America endorsee.

A few nights ago I spent some time with a true-blue Democratic nominee in a solidly blue district, She's going to be a congresswoman next January. And she's going to vote to keep funding the war. Today I spoke to another woman, another sterling progressive, but one in a solidly Republican district. I doubt she's going to be a congresswoman in January but if she were to win she would also vote to keep funding the war. On everything else, both of these women are outstanding. But neither is ready to "give up" on Afghanistan. One actually told me we have to keep fighting so we can prevent the Afghanis from killing each other. I guess if we keep killing them, they're not killing each other!

One of the Democratic candidates I spoke with sincerely informed me that if we left Afghanistan all our allies who trusted us there would be killed. I felt I had time-traveled back to my college years and was listening to someone talking about why we couldn't leave Vietnam. So sad!

Blue America has a page, No Means No, dedicated to the 32 courageous Democrats who stood up to Obama last June when he put forward a supplemental war funding budget. 32 Democrats. That's it. Not one more. Now Obama is getting ready, probably in April, to shove through another 33 billion dollar supplemental-- a disgrace. I wonder how much that 32 will grown. Enough the stop the madness? Today one of those 32, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, prepared to introduce a Privileged Resolution to end the war in Afghanistan (on March 24). The resolution requires that the House debate the continuing war in Afghanistan, now the second longest war in American history. Here's what he had to say about it:

Washington has a lot of money. It has trillions for war, but no money for housing. Money for war, but no money for health care. Money for war, but no money for education. Money for war-- no money to rebuild our cities. No money to create jobs, but money for war.

The Democrats took control of the Congress in 2006 with a promise to end the War in Iraq and it's not enough for this Administration to slow-walk the end of the war, which could continue for years to come. And it's not enough for a Democratic Administration to escalate a war in Afghanistan at a time when there's no clear objective and no end in sight of the contribution of blood and treasure, to a region which has never been conquered by any foreign country.

It's time that we take a stand as citizens. And it's also time to force Congress to take it's Constitutional responsibility seriously. Article 1, Section 8 requires that Congress has the war-making power. It is absolutely imperative that Congress be required to assert it's responsibility on behalf of the American people. Congress is directly elected by the people. And Congress has to respond and step up to it's responsibility to decide if we're going to stay at war in Afghanistan. And so, soon, I will bring to the Floor of the House a Privileged Resolution which will force a vote as to whether or not we stay in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan is hopeless and unwinnable and endless: "This year will be the third in a row that tens of thousands of new United States troops have arrived in Afghanistan with plans to 'clear, hold and build' areas controlled by the Taliban. Those previous surges have achieved little success at holding or building, as the international coalition and Afghan government have inevitably failed to come up with realistic plans for what happens after the fighting is done. Is the campaign in Marja destined for the same fate?" It never worked in Vietnam and it certainly isn't going to work in Afghanistan. The whole idea of building "an enduring, stable, secure, prosperous and democratic state" is so far from any kind of objective reality that anyone who believes it should be committed to an insane asylum other than Congress. Even Petreaus, speaking yesterday in Nashville, admitted the war isn't close to being over. All the Democrats who say they're supporting it claim Obama will end it in June. Something is seriously wrong. Maybe Afghanistan banning live coverage of attacks will make the problems go away... or at least make the death throes of the Afghan puppet regime and Obama's clueless approach less embarrassing for everyone concerned.

Good luck fighting these assholes (and for what reason again?):