Troop buildup has political risks for Democrats

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (L), U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton look on as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen testifies at a House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Afghanistan war on Capitol Hill in Washington, December 2, 2009.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats in Congress face potential peril in next year's election resulting from his decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

The biggest problem may be with the Democrats' anti-war liberal base, which helped them win control of Congress in the 2006 election and the White House in 2008. Democratic victories were due largely to the ailing economy and the unpopularity of Republican President George W. Bush and his Iraq war.

That liberal base may now decline to turn out to vote in next November's congressional election or possibly back anti-war challengers, analysts said.

A troop buildup will also further stretch the U.S. budget at a time when voters have grown increasingly concerned about the record federal deficit.

Although polls show Americans divided about whether to commit more troops to Afghanistan, surveys show the Afghan war has not been a top voter concern, eclipsed by the economy and a jobless rate of 10.2 percent, the highest in 26 years.

Democrat David Obey, chairman of the House of Representatives powerful Appropriations Committee, responded to Obama's announced troop buildup on Tuesday with a warning.

Obey estimated the military operation could cost up to $900 billion over the next decade, "which could devour our ability to pay for the actions necessary to rebuild our own economy."

Obey suggested a "war surtax," a proposal certain to draw fire.

Democratic Senator Paul Kirk, a former national chairman of his party, said it was unclear what the impact of the buildup of troops in Afghanistan would be on next year's election.

'NO GOOD OPTIONS'

"Like everything else, it depends on how it goes," said Kirk, adding Obama had to make the best decision he could based on national security, not politics.

"There were absolutely no good options," said Kirk.

If Obama pulled out troops, as favored by some, and there was an another September 11-type attack, the president may have been pinned with much of the blame.

But if his decision to send in more troops shows progress toward stabilizing war-torn Afghanistan, he is certain to get a boost.

Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center, a nonprofit group that conducts public opinion surveys, said, "Right now, it is unclear if Afghanistan will be a win or lose situation," militarily or politically.

Dimock said a Pew poll last month found that 32 percent of respondents favored an increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, compared with 40 percent who favored a decrease.

Obama had an overall approval rating of 51 percent in the Pew Poll, with only 36 percent approving how he has handled Afghanistan, Dimock said.

Even before Obama made his anticipated announcement on Tuesday, MoveOn.org, a leading liberal group, sought to rally opposition.

"Call the White House and urge the president that we want him to focus on bringing the troops home, not escalating our involvement in Afghanistan," it e-mailed members.

Reaction to Obama's buildup from congressional Democrats ranged from qualified support to outright opposition. Some said they were not ready to stake out a position publicly.

Congressional Republicans have long favored a troop buildup, but criticized Obama's vow that some troops would start coming home in 2011, saying it would embolden the enemy.

Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said, "Basically, Afghanistan creates problems for Democrats with their base."

"It could produce some primary challenges from anti-war candidates, or it could further dampen enthusiasm for turning out to vote in November," Duffy said.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)