What Scott Brown and Afghanistan Have in Common

Souk in Fez, Morocco - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com


After Scott Brown's recent remarkable victory in Massachusetts, I was reminded of an article I read in the August 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine discussing strategies on how to secure victory in Afghanistan. “Flipping the Taliban – How to Win in Afghanistan” proposed a novel way to prevail in a country that has proven impossible to conquer. The authors concluded that Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, and Pashtun factions display an unusual talent for backing a winner. In other words they will shift alliances constantly to place themselves on the winning side. No act of treachery or deceit is beneath Afghan tribal leaders in their efforts to realign their clan into a more favorable position. The article fancifully recommended that the United States should take whatever steps were necessary to insure itself as the eventual winner, so all the warring groups will switch their support to our side and a final victory will be achieved.

This trite solution over simplifies the complexities of dealing with the Afghan problem. However, the proposal applies appropriately to the American political scene. The American professional politician is no different than his Afghan cousin – their priority is to stay in power by backing a winner and resorting to short term goals to achieve this end.

Scott Brown faced an electorate where registered Democrats out numbered Republicans three to one. In winning Ted Kennedy's lifetime Senate seat he demonstrated the traditional power base of the political class has been shaken. With the exception of safe havens represented by the likes of Pelosi, Franks, and Waters where only death or voluntary retirement can displace the incumbent, elections for United States senators, state governors, and most congressional seats offer a significant chance to redefine the balance of power. For the majority of politicians whose perpetual reelection is no longer certain and who face an angry constituency, it is clearly a time to scrap principle and back a winner.

Even the lamentable lame duck Chris Dodd, who is retiring from the Senate rather than lose in the November general election, is cautioning the Democratic leadership to move less recklessly in regard to health care reform. Vulnerable politicians who value life time tenure above all else are attempting to recast themselves as thoughtful statesmen who readily act independently of the Obama machine. They are not switching sides, of course, only realigning.

The results of the Massachusetts Senate contest serves notice that politicians of all parties must be aware they work for the people not the obverse. Not to downplay the Brown triumph, but he ran against an egregious candidate who was not an incumbent. The litmus test will occur this November when the power of the incumbency will be pitted against challengers who historically face 1:20 odds when contesting a sitting politician. Look for our Congressmen to make “fact finding” pilgrimages to Kabul this year to learn from the experts on how to switch sides while calling it a “strategic reconsideration.”

ADDENDUM:

The morning after I posted this article the local newspaper, the Fresno Bee, reported that two Democratic congressmen from California's Central Valley have developed a rift with the Obama administration. Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Jim Costa of Fresno are irate over the White House's dealings with issues germane to their districts. What makes this all the more curious is Cardoza and Costa identify themselves as Blue Dog Democrats, but Cardoza has voted with the Obama administration 96% of the time and Costa 93%. I expect both of them to be making the aforementioned trip to Kabul soon.