Reinhold Niebuhr at TNR
get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
President Obama is about to badly alienate antiwar Democrats by sending more troops to Afghanistan. So who will lead the charge on their behalf against the new policy? David Obey seems to want the job. The Wisconsin congressman, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and opposes the troop increase, put forth legislation last week that proposes to finance the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by raising taxes. “I went through the Vietnam years when the cost of that damn war drained away the ability to do anything else,” he told Politico. “I chair the committee that has to say no to effort after effort to rebuild economy.” Few think the legislation could pass Congress. But don’t expect Obey to drop the matter. The 40-year House veteran has endured more than his share of Washington fights, and he doesn’t have a history of backing down.

After being elected to Congress in 1969 at the tender age of 30, Obey rankled his senior colleagues by pushing a number of ethics reforms. He made sure that committee hearings, often held behind closed doors, were open to the public and corralled colleagues into disclosing their financial affairs in order to reveal potential conflicts of interest. In 2002, Obey sparred with the Bush administration, which tried to humiliate him by including a color photo of an ice sled on its 2003 budget plan—a reference to the congressman’s earmark for an $80,000 rescue sled to be used on frozen lakes in his home district. Obey responded that the administration had “a severe attitude problem.” At the same time, he attacked Bush for not sharing information about homeland security with Congress. “No information, no money,” he said. Obey won a partial victory when homeland security chief Tom Ridge met behind closed doors with a House Appropriations subcommittee.
But it was the Iraq war that truly brought Obey into the national spotlight. In 2007, against all odds, he pushed a supplemental war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq through the House. He lashed out at antiwar protesters who opposed the bill, calling them “idiot liberals.” He also disseminated false information to various Democratic colleagues in order to ferret out leaks. (He apologized for the former but not the latter.) The measure was vetoed by Bush, but Obey refused to let it go. Months later, he introduced an income tax bill to help pay for the Iraq war. Arguing in favor of the tax, he chastised his opponents: “Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs. It doesn’t seem too much to ask the average taxpayer to pay $30 for the cost of the war so we don’t have to shove it off on our kids.”
Now Obey sounds like a man who would welcome the mantle of chief antiwar spokesman. “I’m not president,” Obey recently said, “but I can certainly try to influence policy any way I can.”
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (3)
Afghanistan is now not a winnable war in any real-world definition of winnable, even less so than Iraq. In so far as the past predicts the future, outside-powers have at least been able to rule areas of the Fertile Crescent for significant periods of time -- not so for Afghanistan. Both are wars whose continuation and costs bring no domestic benefits, and diminishing non-domestic benefits that were always minimal for Iraq and went negative for Afghanistan in the last 1-3 years. Hence, both are stupid wars in the sense that Obama presciently said he is not against all wars, but rather stupid wars. I believe that is indeed the position of the majority of Americans today. Ditto our better ... view full comment
Afghanistan is now not a winnable war in any real-world definition of winnable, even less so than Iraq. In so far as the past predicts the future, outside-powers have at least been able to rule areas of the Fertile Crescent for significant periods of time -- not so for Afghanistan. Both are wars whose continuation and costs bring no domestic benefits, and diminishing non-domestic benefits that were always minimal for Iraq and went negative for Afghanistan in the last 1-3 years. Hence, both are stupid wars in the sense that Obama presciently said he is not against all wars, but rather stupid wars. I believe that is indeed the position of the majority of Americans today. Ditto our better generals who have thought strategically on joining or expanding particular conflicts: Eisenhower on wars in Southeast Asia, Powell on expanding a conflict in Middle East, Washington on picking sides on wars in Europe, etc. The brutal reality is that the best that can be hoped for in Afghanistan is to pull out and provide aid to a preferred side in a civil war to prevent an overrun of the entire country by Al Queda (very unlikely) or even the Taliban (more likely, but preventable by spending several $B/year rather than $100B/yr).
If Obama is so smart, and these are stupid wars, why are we still in Iraq, and why is he about to put 30 something thousand more troops in a war you call "unwinnable?"
Either a) neither war is unwinnable (the dirty little secret is that the war in Iraq has been won, at least for now), or b) Obama isn't that smart after all. Which do you prefer?
I always chuckle when someone talks about our "ruling" Afghanistan, which we have no desire to do. We're not the British (who actually DID rule it for a time) and we're certainly not the Soviets. We have national interests in Afghanistan, stemming from 9/11, and Obama says it's a "war of necessity." Is he wrong?
What you want to do is to leave both p ... view full comment
If Obama is so smart, and these are stupid wars, why are we still in Iraq, and why is he about to put 30 something thousand more troops in a war you call "unwinnable?"
Either a) neither war is unwinnable (the dirty little secret is that the war in Iraq has been won, at least for now), or b) Obama isn't that smart after all. Which do you prefer?
I always chuckle when someone talks about our "ruling" Afghanistan, which we have no desire to do. We're not the British (who actually DID rule it for a time) and we're certainly not the Soviets. We have national interests in Afghanistan, stemming from 9/11, and Obama says it's a "war of necessity." Is he wrong?
What you want to do is to leave both places in order to "save" money that you want to p*ss down various domestic ratholes. Fair enough, but that's no reason to abandon our interests in the region.
We can all look forward to Obey having an enhanced ability to do anything else. After all, didn't he do a fine job controlling the drafting of the stimulus bill?
We can all look forward to Obey having an enhanced ability to do anything else. After all, didn't he do a fine job controlling the drafting of the stimulus bill?