It's good that the cost of war is becoming an issue (0.00 / 0)

because it's a debate the right clearly cannot win, as you pointed out, considering their cavalier opposition to health care reform which would cost about the same as the Afghan war on a year by year basis. It's particularly fortuitous that this issue comes up now as health care reform enters its final stages. I think it will be a political victory to link the costs of war and health care, and the right's divergent positions on these issues, since health care is clearly a more justifiable expense with more clearly defined consequences on the lives of American people. It's strange to think that an escalation in Afghanistan would facilitate the passage of health care at home, but that seems to be the case, and the timing is alarmingly coincidental, as if a quid pro quo was being implicitly offered. It's the type of contrasting narrative that the media is liable to magnify, and judging from some early conservative commentary, they are aware, even concerned, about this contradiction, and want to get out in front of it.

Here is Cesar Honda at the Politico Arena:

I'd pay for the troop increase by imposing an immediate spending freeze on domestic discretionary programs. Let's have a little "shared sacrifice" in Washington before imposing higher taxes on the American people.

Pejman Yousefzadeh (Also Arena contributor):

I would pay for this effort, at least in part, by scuttling a health care "reform" enterprise that will not only fail to control costs, but will allow them to spiral out of control.

I haven't checked the other right wing commentary, but the fact these two immediately stepped forward and suggested paying for the war by killing health reform suggests the right is getting ready to double down on this issue. I think it's a perfectly framed argument that progressives can clearly win. It might even be a means of killing the war if the narrative takes hold and the debate becomes about choosing one over the other. In fact, the right is liable to foolishly advance just this type of narrative, as they are now doing.

Of course, the political dimension is separate and apart from whether the escalation is justified, it just happens to be the case that the right will be compromised on one of their main points of attack on health care reform, so the best line of attack from the point of view of health care reform is to push this frame as hard as possible. It might have the secondary effect of bringing the cost of war into public consciousness in a way that could undermine the escalation as well.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:59:08 AM CST

In fact, I would add (4.00 / 1)

that a great way of getting out in front of this issue is to poll the following question (or something along these lines):

"If you could pay for only one, would you choose health care reform or the war in Afghanistan".

The results would clearly favor health care reform, even perhaps on a bipartisan basis. Then it would be a question of funneling the results into blogs and the MSM where it can do political damage.

Maybe Kos/Research 2000 could poll the question.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:14:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Social Security (0.00 / 0)

Throw Conrad under the bus.  If we need to clip something it is Afghanistan.  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:45:46 AM CST

Thank goodness... (0.00 / 0)

...the Dems are the antiwar party, eh? Why, Ds would never vote vote for to initiate aggressive war, or vote to support its expansion and continuation. And obviously no Dem would ever propose or vote for expanding the military budget to levels beyond anything seen since WW II -- beyond what even CheneyBush proposed.

Feh.

A couple of quick reads: "The Liberal Defence of Murder" by Richard Seymour, and "Savage Mules: The Democrats and Endless War" by Dennis Perrin.

On healthcare, the worst actors in US healthcare are the for-profiteers, especially the insurance industry and pharmaceuticals. The Dem response, starting with Clinton and continued with today's monstrosity, has been to reward the murdering criminals with massive subsidies, and criminalize the obvious solution: single payer.

---

by: nasrudin @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:59:27 AM CST