By Bob Morgan, Jr.

With all the political turmoil surrounding health care and other issues, only occasionally are we reminded that we are a nation at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One reason that the war is not on the front burner is that support for the Obama Administration's policies do not break along conventional political lines. While Democrats are increasingly skeptical of a longterm commitment in Afghanistan, President Obama enjoys relatively solid support among Republicans. Indeed, The New York Times reports a headline on the Republican National Committee website about the war, "Stand Strong, Mr. President," not exactly the RNC's typical take on Mr. Obama's policies.

There are, of course, some exceptions to the support for the Afghanistan war on the right. Columnist George Will this week advocated a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan. (A column a few days later also urged a retreat from Iraq.) Mr. Will pointed to the huge number of foreign forces necessary for a successful counterinsurgency, as well as the poverty and corruption in the country. For example, he asserts that people in Afghanistan yearn for the restoration of warlords who were less brutal and corrupt than President Hamid Karzai's government. However, most conservative voices refuted Mr. Will's contentions.

On the merits, a hasty withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan seems like the wrong prescription. In Iraq, the United States is slowly moving troops out pursuant to the Status of Forces Agreement, under which United States troops were required to be out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 (this has already happened) and leave the country entirely by December 31, 2011. While there have been occasional waves of terrorist bombings in the last few months, the situation is nowhere near as bad as a few years ago. Notably, secular rather than religious parties did well in the last election, signaling reduced sectarian tensions. Although the situation is fragile, there is a good possibility of achieving the goal of a moderate, secular, democratic government in a key country in the Mideast.

An editorial in the Washington Post last week, makes the case for staying in Afghanistan. The piece notes a recent "setback" in Afghanistan — credible reports of low turnout and massive ballot irregularities on all sides, as well as a report by the United States military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal of a "serious" military situation in which Taliban fighters are growing stronger and allied resources are insufficient. With this background, and relatively high United States casualties in recent months, General McChrystal's expected request for more resources for the war is likely to be controversial.

Nevertheless, the Post editors believe that honoring General McChrystal's expected request makes sense. They point out that alternative strategies aimed at simply killing insurgents while minimizing United States casualties, have proved unsuccessful in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And, if "Mr. Obama provides adequate military and civilian resources, there is a reasonable chance the counterinsurgency effort will lead to more than stalemate, as it did in Iraq. " The editorial concludes by noting that the Taliban insurgency is not as strong as those fought by the British and the Soviets and that "not everything is rotten" under Mr. Karzai;'s government, with training of the Afghani military going relatively well. "Stabilizing Afghanistan will require many years of patient effort and the pain of continued American casualties. Yet the consequences of any other option are likely to be far more dangerous for the country."