Obama's Afghan Strategy Needs Unlikely Political Partners

WASHINGTON -- Before the reviews were even in for President Obama's much-awaited speech on Afghanistan, it was clear he would need some unlikely political partners to bolster his call for more troops. And it won't be the first time a president has turned to the opposition when he couldn't count on his own party.

Liberal Democrats may have thrilled to Obama's campaign mantra that Iraq was a war of choice while the fight in Afghanistan is a "war of necessity." But the thrill is gone now that he wants to put more boots on that dusty ground.

"He is definitely going to have to rely on Republicans because he's got a big problem on his left," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "Their expectations were Mount Everest high."

Indeed, from leaders in the president's own party to progressive think tanks to the blogosphere, once dependable allies have criticized Obama for caving in to military commanders.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin has said the key to success "is an Afghan surge, not an American surge" of troops. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called Afghan President Hamid Karzai an "unworthy partner."

Obama has some partners within his party, but he may have to look to political adversaries like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other Republicans who have signaled they will back the president if he hews close to the wants of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Some Republicans may not be happy that Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan by July is still about 10,000 below what McChrystal requested, but some anti-war Democrats may be livid at a move to ramp up instead of scale down U.S. involvement.

All of that remains to be seen, but history is filled with pivotal moments when presidents relied on the kindness of political strangers to advance for policy objectives:

• Woodrow Wilson campaigned for re-election in 1916 on a promise to keep America out of war. But when the Democratic president changed his mind about neutrality, he sought the support of Republicans to rally the votes to enter World War I.

"Obama is a lot like Wilson," said historian Douglas Brinkley, noting that both presidents were pressured by Republicans to send troops to an ongoing conflict.

• Lyndon Johnson lost his fellow Southern Democrats when he pushed for laws to eliminate racial discrimination. It took the help of Republicans like Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• Bill Clinton couldn't have signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which labor leaders strongly opposed, without Republican votes. When the Democratic president wanted to reform welfare -- a key clause in the Republican Contract with America -- GOP leaders like Newt Gingrich proved the biggest cheerleaders.

• George W. Bush may be reviled in liberal circles, but on issues other than war he worked closely with Democrats in Congress. Sen. Edward Kennedy put his unparalleled clout behind Bush's No Child Left Behind education initiative despite vehement opposition from teachers unions. Bush also turned to Democrats to back him on immigration reform, although conservatives in his party managed to kill legislation anyway.

"There are issues where the obvious policy goal is in the center and you lose significant numbers of your own party members who represent the base," Ornstein said. But none, he said, is as vexing for Democrats as the one Obama takes on this week.

"Since Vietnam, the Democratic Party has had a strong reflexively anti-war core," he said. "War votes are often a problem for Democrats."