Join Now

Hot Topics

Last updated: August 12th, 2010

How to find your way through the conflicting and often emotional arguments around the conflict in Afghanistan is often difficult. But Vote iQ is making it easier.

How Republicans See Things

It was under a Republican president, George W. Bush, that the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan in 2002 in order to topple the governing tribal leaders, the Taliban, who provided sanctuary to the al Qaeda leaders who were the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on America. That 2002 American invasion had broad bipartisan support from both political parties. Although top al Qaeda leaders escaped capture, the quick displacement of the Taliban and the introduction of a moderate, Western-friendly government, signaled to many observers that the goals for invading Afghanistan had been accomplished. Moreover, by 2003, the Bush White House increasingly focused on Iraq, and although American troops remained in Afghanistan, it was no longer America's top priority. Only during the last two years of the Bush administration (2007-2008) was it increasingly clear that instead of being eliminated, the Taliban had used the intervening years to rearm itself and rebuild support in large stretches of rural Afghanistan. As the Taliban ramped up its military efforts to retake control of the country, the debate in Washington was whether the U.S. should commit a new and enlarged fighting force to stabilize the country. The Republicans, normally hawkish on such matters, discovered that the Democrats were mostly committed to renewing the military battle in Afghanistan. Instead of a typical hawks versus doves debate that had marked Vietnam, or the many previous instances in which Republicans had invoked a "weak on national security" charge against Democrats, Republican lawmakers found themselves limited to arguing less sweeping issues, such as wartime strategies or the number of troops that should be committed.

In the 2008 Republican platform, the party stated: "The seven years since U.S. troops helped topple the Taliban, there has been great progress" but much remains to be done. We must prevail in Afghanistan to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban or an al Qaeda sanctuary in that country. A nationwide counterinsurgency strategy led by a unified commander is an essential prerequisite to success. Additional forces are also necessary, both from NATO countries and through a doubling in size of the Afghan army. The international community must work with the Afghan government to better address the problems of illegal drugs, governance, and corruption. We flatly reject the Democratic Party's idea that America can succeed in Afghanistan only by failure in Iraq."

How Democrats See Things

Democrats also found themselves in a somewhat unusual position when it came to Afghanistan. They had wholeheartedly supported the original war after 9/11. But Democrats were split about the initial invasion into Iraq. In the 2008 presidential race, one important distinction between the candidates was that Barack Obama had opposed the war, while Hillary Clinton had voted for it, together with a majority in her party. As it became clear that Bush's assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was inaccurate, more Democrats became vocal opponents of the Iraqi conflict. But Obama remained committed to the war in Afghanistan. After winning the White House in 2008, and confronted with the deteriorating military situation in Afghanistan, he redoubled the military commitment to the country. His decision to ramp up the U.S. military role there disappointed some of his most liberal supporters, who had been hoping for a quick withdrawal. Conservatives vigorously criticized him for delaying a decision, but approved it when it was made.

In the 2008 Democratic platform, the party stated: "Our troops are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but as countless military commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledge, we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. We will finally make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions "with fewer restrictions" from our NATO allies. We will focus on building up our special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law. We will bolster our State Department's Provincial Reconstruction Teams and our other government agencies helping the Afghan people. We will help Afghans educate their children, including their girls, provide basic human services to their population, and grow their economy from the bottom up, with an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year—including investments in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers—just as we crack down on trafficking and corruption. Afghanistan must not be lost to a future of narco-terrorism—or become again a haven for terrorists."

How Libertarians See Things

As is typical of Libertarians, they tend to oppose foreign interventions except in very rare situations. In their 2008 party platform they vow "to eliminate intervention by US abroad . . . The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. We favor a drastic reduction in cost and size of our total diplomatic establishment."

Government Resources

One of the single best government resources is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which publishes a long list of Afghanistan-related articles and studies, many of them focused on the financial effects of funding the war or maintaining a long term military presence in the country.

Equally useful is the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which was established by Congress to provide members with objective research reports on the issues that come before the national legislature every year. CRS reports are written expressly for the use of members of Congress and are not published by the government. But several non-profit groups regularly make the reports available on their websites, including the Federation of American Scientists.

Also the Department of State has a useful section of information about Afghanistan and the current U.S. and NATO military action (the International Security Assistance Force [ISAF])..

Foundations

The Washington D.C.-based Brookings Institution (regarded as moderate to liberal) is one of the oldest think tanks and has three full-time fellows who have developed hundreds of original research and commentary papers regarding Afghanistan. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has more than 1300 articles and research papers on Afghanistan and the military conflict. (In 2010 Brookings sponsored a conference of "Afghan stakeholders and Western experts" at the British House of Commons about "the future of Afghanistan.")

The 62 year-old, California-based Rand Corporation is a nonpartisan think tank. It has numerous studies and articles about Afghanistan under its "Hot Topic" listing. The independent think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, has an extensive section devoted to Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) is composed of academics and retired military officers and in order to maintain its objective tone, "accepts no U.S. government or defense industry funding. To encourage the intellectual freedom of the staff, CDI does not hold policy positions." CDI has a large section devoted to Afghanistan. It is a subsidiary of the World Security Institute, one of the largest independent journalist and research sites regarding global affairs.

Other useful non-partisan resources include the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, an independent, nonpartisan "public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues." FactCheck.org is an objective website run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck describes itself as a "nonpartisan, nonprofit 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." Also useful and neutral are the Sunlight Foundation, the History News Network and the online public policy library at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

Liberal Sources

Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the country's oldest progressive think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies, studies global issues and provides research on foreign policy as it relates to Afghanistan. The liberal Washington D.C.-based Center for American Progress has almost 1,000 articles about the war and related issues to Afghanistan.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is a progressive think tank that focuses on the economic impact of the war in Afghanistan. New York's Century Foundation is a nonprofit liberal think tank that has conducted its own "Project on Afghanistan in its Regional and Multilateral Dimensions." The National Security Network (NSN) is a liberal think tank that describes its purpose as to "build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin." Afghanistan is the NSN's "featured issue" and it brought together "a diverse group of progressive experts in development, counter-terrorism, regional politics and US politics" to develop a "set of principles that might guide both the Administration in building a new strategy and advocates in Congress, the media and the public in judging a proposed strategy." The Progressive Policy Institute has a special focus on terrorism and Afghanistan, as does the liberal Roosevelt Institution/Campus Network, which is the first student-run think tank in the U.S.

The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor is an initiative of the Human Security Report Project at the School for International Studies at Simon Fraser University. In addition to studying the war itself from a progressive perspective, it describes its mission as focusing "on a broad set of related issue-areas, including health, development, displacement, governance, gender, small arms, landmines, human rights and transitional justice."

Conservative Sources

The Heritage Foundation has two full-time research fellows developing and publishing reports and policy proposals about the war in Afghanistan from a conservative perspective. Here you will find everything from possible reconciliation with the Taliban to how short term strategies in Afghanistan might subvert the war against terror. Another conservative think tank that produces reports on Afghanistan is the American Enterprise Institute. The conservative Middle East Forum, directed by controversial author and lecturer, Daniel Pipes, has an extensive collection of briefings, policy papers, and general studies and analyses.

The Hoover Institution has influence both with conservatives as well as libertarians. Among its online papers are in-depth policy reviews of whether the war can be won and if democracy can survive in Afghanistan.

The Weekly Standard offers a traditional conservative voice, one that frequently criticizes the Obama administration for supposedly waffling on important decisions or setting withdrawal deadlines that do not take into account the reality on the ground. And the veteran conservative magazine, the National Review, writes about the war in Afghanistan as "a defining struggle," emphasizing how it is different from the conflict in Iraq and why it's possible to prevail. The American Conservative, co-founded by former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, represents the view of some on the political right who roundly opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and contend that the Afghanistan War is a quagmire reminiscent of the failed Soviet occupation of the 1980s. Other solid conservative publications that reflect how the right is feeling about the war in Afghanistan include the American Spectator; and the John Birch Society's the New American.

Libertarian Sources

The Cato Institute is one of the premier think tanks for Libertarians and it provides papers and links to like-minded organizations for discussions on the war in Afghanistan. The Independent Institute is a Libertarian-backed policy center focused more on commentary.

Activist Sources

Rethink Afghanistan is a foundation that promotes non-military solutions in Afghanistan. Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peach organization, urges its followers, "Tell Congress: No more money for war! We need an exit strategy for Afghanistan." Stop the War Coalition is one of the largest "get out of Afghanistan now" organizations and is based in the UK. A similar U.S.-based foundation is Stop the War in Afghanistan, filled with anti-war online articles and references. Free & Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan is focused solely on eliminating fraud in the Afghan election process and insuring future balloting is fair. The Feminist Majority Foundation has an extensive "Campaign for Afghan Women & Girls." A related foundation is Women for Women International. Its focus is on "working toward freedom and equality for the women of Afghanistan." And the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) is the self-described "is the oldest political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan since 1977." The Nation, the country's premier left-of-center political magazine, covers the war from an investigative slant, looking into everything from sweetheart deals for military contractors to secret negotiations with the Taliban. Mother Jones, another bellweather liberal publication, also emphasizes the investigative stories, ranging from Afghanistan's environmental casualties to criticizing Obama for "a credibility gap" when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. Other solid liberal publications to check to see how the left is feeling about the war in Afghanistan include, the venerable Harper's magazine; CounterPunch, a bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair; TomPaine.com; and Intervention Magazine.