I am concerned that progressives and Democratic candidates who base their arguments for withdrawal from Iraq on the idea that we have to focus on the "real fight" in Afghanistan (and, in some formulations, Pakistan) are playing a dangerous game.

The argument is tempting. Republicans have not only utterly botched the running of our government, they've started to lose credibility on their perennial rhetorical strengths: "fiscal conservatism" (whatever that means) and national security, among others. Progressives rightly recognize their opportunity to step in and beat conservatives on their own turf. Just like we can show that we're better with money than they are, we can show that we can manage the military more effectively.

So the argument seems clear: Iraq was a mistake because we took our eye off the ball, which is Afghanistan - the site of our real enemies.

Some of my favorite candidates, like Oklahoma's Andrew Rice, make the case in a compelling fashion:

There can be no mistaking that now, after five years of bloody confrontation, the U.S. mission in Iraq is about policing a brutal civil war -- not about fighting global terrorism. That fight is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. General David Petraeus, who reports to Congress on the status of the war early next month, has said along with others that the War in Iraq can only be ended politically, not militarily. I think we can safely say that American troops have done their job. It is time for America's political leaders to do theirs.

I love the power of these words, and I think they have the potential to appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. I agree strongly with Andrew's critiques of the government and his characterization of the occupation of Iraq.

But after reading his piece again, I realized that I cannot fully agree with his comments on Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. A number of progressives who use this frame of "taking the fight to our real enemies" - and I am complicit in this - have perhaps not thought through its implications and potential outcomes. So that's what I intend to do here.

There are a few problems with setting up the expectation that we will be able to win military in Afghanistan if we leave Iraq. First, a military victory will be difficult to achieve in Afghanistan, particularly if we continue with our current approaches to warfare, poppy eradication, and "nationbuilding." If we do not heavily reduce the civilian casualties we inflict, find a sensible solution to the drug problem (I favor subsidies for farmers who agree not to grow poppies), reinvent our development approach to employ more Afghans and make a difference at the local level, and reduce corruption in the Afghan government, we will not be able to fundamentally undercut the sources of the Taliban's support. And if we can't do that, then we will fight, and fight, and fight. We won't lose, but we won't win - sound familiar?

Second, escalation in Afghanistan could draw us further into Pakistan, risking disastrous consequences. The strikes and assassinations we already conduct inside Pakistan are a terrible idea. Putting ground troops in, which we have also begun to do, is also a terrible idea. I find the rhetoric - much of it coming from Democrats - about striking Pakistan disturbing, especially because of the casual manner in which politicians toss it about. I get the feeling that even some of the most progressive candidates and leaders fail to understand how much of a powderkeg Pakistan is. With Pakistan's recent transition to a democratically elected civilian government, and the possibility of imminent confrontations between these leaders and Musharraf, the US must reject the idea of military involvement in the country. Our presence there would threaten, not increase, political stability. And in a country full of religious extremists, known terrorists, paranoid spies, corrupt leaders, and nuclear weapons, political destabilization could bring nightmarish consequences.

Third, a stalemate - or a crisis - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or both, could have major consequences in US electoral politics if progressives stake their anti-war arguments on this issue. Using Afghanistan to argue for a withdrawal from Iraq makes sense now. But what about five years down the line, when we're still in Afghanistan, and the situation has not changed? All of those promises will be thrown back in politicians' faces by both right and left. One of my greatest fears is that Democrats will gain power but fail to deal effectively with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, paving the way for a Nixon-like Republican to regain the White House (Chuck Hagel, 2012?).

The final problem with the "Iraq to Afghanistan" rhetoric also points the way toward an alternative frame. The idea that we should focus on Afghanistan makes little headway on questioning the mentality that got us mired in Iraq in the first place. America needs to have a conversation with itself and its allies about our arrogant unilateralism, blind ideological prejudices, and stubborn refusal to adapt strategies to changing realities.

If we are to focus on Afghanistan - and make progress there - we will have to involve other countries in a more respectful and productive manner. That means we should transition away from bullying and guilt-tripping our NATO allies. Instead, we must begin convincing them that we mean business in Afghanistan, and that they should participate not because of our failure but because of our success. That also means reaching out to our "enemies": Iran especially. It means treating Pakistan's civilian government, India, and China as full partners in our attempt to solve a major geopolitical problem. It means distancing ourself from Musharraf and corrupt politicians in Afghanistan. In short, it means reinventing our foreign policy, not just redirecting it.

I would urge progressives to think carefully about the expectations they create when they promise that a withdrawal from Iraq will soon be followed by a glorious victory in Afghanistan. Frankly, I wonder whether anyone could deliver that. If we brought back Hannibal, Scipio, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Churchill from the grave, I'm not sure they figure out a way to win through arms alone. What we can deliver, though, is something that will achieve victory: a new approach to the world, characterized by collaboration, imagination, and reality, not ideology. I think only this approach can truly put America back on track. And I think that in 2008, cutting down not just Republican decisions, but Republican ideology, is something we can win votes on.