It can and has been argued that President Obama won the Democratic primary because of his early opposition to the Iraq War. In late 2002, he gave a passionate speech denouncing the potential invasion as a “dumb war.” A combination of fear and conventional wisdom led most Democrats to stand behind President Bush from 2002-2003. His gamble clearly paid off, while status quo thinking thwarted the ambitions of his leftist peers. A Republican who shares the same dreams and aspirations as Obama should consider a similar gambit.
A few days ago the Politico reported that the Pentagon is preparing to fight in Afghanistan for the next three to five years. This serious commitment has the potential to pay dividends for Democrats-especially a capture of Osama Bin Laden-, but it could also catastrophically backfire. Casualties and appropriations could amass to such an extent that Republican voters demand change. There is a precedent for this; Republican Richard Nixon during the 1968 election campaigned on the promise to end the Vietnam War.
Strategists would skeptically note that it is significantly more appealing for Democrats to be anti-war with their base than it is for Republicans to be with theirs. While this is true, the anti-spending sentiment of the Republican party has eruptively emerged in the form of tea parties. That anti-government feeling could certainly be extended to defense spending if Afghanistan requires at least $40 billion annually for another five years.
To make it far in politics, a politician usually has to make some type of a big gamble to make him or her unique. LBJ took on segregation from the South, Nixon was one of the first ones to become fiercely anti-communist, Reagan fully embraced the most radical wing of his party, Bush I controversially supported civil rights from the South as a congressman, etc. Playing by the textbook is tempting, but is generally a losing strategy. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries.
So if a long shot like MS Governor Haley Barbour, SC Governor Mark Sanford, or Arizona Senator John Kyl wants to genuinely take a stab at 2012, they should consider opposing Obama’s latest measures in Afghanistan. If everything works out well, Obama will probably be reelected or one of the Republicans favorites will prevail. If it fails, however, a dark horse could seize the anti-war lacuna in Republican politics.
