PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

The Need for Progressives to Make Tough Choices on Security

  • December 1, 2009
  • Jim Arkedis

Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal responded to my post from last week on the strategic deliberations in Afghanistan. See here for his initial post and here for my response.

While there’s much in Michael’s post I disagree with on a substantive level (like his odd suggestion that “we want al Qaeda in Afghanistan.” Really?), my main beef is on a macro level, when he states that your friends here at the PPI continue “to reflect a perspective that has driven some dangerous foreign policy thinking in the Democratic Party in recent years…. Aren’t the days of ‘Democrats need to be as militaristic as the Republicans’ behind us?”

Michael is implying that I am mindlessly supporting President Obama’s reported escalation in Afghanistan out of a fear that Democrats will look weak on matters of national security.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In no way am I “as militaristic as the Republicans,” nor am I engaging in militarism for militarism’s sake. That’s ridiculous. My position boils down to what I think is essential to keeping the country safe. (On that note, Michael will no doubt re-raise the pre-invasion debate on Iraq, which I’m happy to deal with in a separate post.)

Here’s what it comes down to: Democrats can’t shirk the responsibility of making difficult choices on national security because of political expediency. It is easy to say, “We’re sick of being in Afghanistan, we’re sick of American soldiers dying, we have been al Qaeda-free since 2001, and all the poll numbers say Americans want out, so why don’t we just pack it in?”

But based on my analysis of the existing evidence, I firmly believe that America has ongoing national security interests in Af-Pak, and what the president will announce tonight offers the best possibility (of many imperfect choices) to permanently secure the country against a patient and resilient adversary. That might not be the popular or easy choice, but it’s the necessary one.

Michael would likely argue that he sees little compelling evidence to suggest an ongoing national security interest, or that there may be one, but it can be contained with a significantly smaller military footprint.

I’d disagree, of course, and so would President Obama, who has had far superior information on the subject than either of us, and whose campaign and governance to date hardly suggest a leader intent on duping the country into more unneeded military misadventures.

Related Work

Feature  |  June 25, 2025

At NATO Summit, Allies Avoid Tensions with Trump

  • Tamar Jacoby
Blog  |  June 24, 2025

Strikes Without Competent Diplomacy Risk Open-Ended Conflict in the Middle East

  • Peter Juul
Blog  |  June 17, 2025

Trump Courts Chaos With His Middle East Failures

  • Peter Juul
Press Release  |  June 17, 2025

New PPI Report Calls on Democrats to Reclaim National Security Leadership

  • Peter Juul
Publication  |  June 17, 2025

An Affordable Necessity: The Case for a Larger Defense Budget

  • Peter Juul
Op-Ed  |  May 28, 2025

Jacoby for Forbes: Europe Looks For Alternatives To A Changing NATO

  • Tamar Jacoby
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2025 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings