The More or Less Loyal Opposition

While opposition to war is a normal condition presidents waging war have to face, this war is different. The president will face opposition to the war in Afghanistan largely from within his own party. In Vietnam, Nixon faced the opposition party that became anti-war and under Ford we were compelled to lose that war. In similar partisan fashion, however, we won the Philippine Insurrection despite the strident opposition.

I have no idea how this will play out. There could be a virtual civil war within the president's party as loyalists defend his war effort at the side of Republicans. The Left will increasingly voice their anger both at the president and at Congress, putting pressure on war supportive Democrats to swing against the war. Mere cooperation with Republicans to support the war will be seen as a sign of betrayal.

Some Republicans will side against the war as well, as they support a policy of "more rubble means less trouble." And as the 2010 elections get closer, more will decide that opposing the president on the war is necessary for reelection.

So the president will need to juggle votes with an anti-war leadership and members of both parties opposing and supporting him. It might actually be in the president's interests to have his party lose one house in Congress in 2010 so at least one house will be in control of the committees to back the war effort, at least. And in the end, the president might face a primary challenge from the anti-war wing of his party.

Assuming the president holds firm in his determination to win what he now says is the necessary war.

And this virtual civil war that we must win in order to win on the battlefield will play out with our infighting broadcast around the world into the deepest cave in Afghanistan. How can they not believe God is on their side when they see that?

Only we can beat us. And we might do just that. We shall see.