Three Republican lawmakers who have been outspoken on the war in Afghanistan are trying to push their party to start debating alternative policies and will be convening a meeting next month to start the debate.

Reps. Walter Jones (N.C.), Ron Paul (Texas) and Jimmy Duncan (Tenn.) sent a letter to every Republican House member on Monday inviting them them to a Feb. 16 briefing with Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist -- all of whom have been critical of the direction of the war.

The vast majority of Republican freshmen remain committed to the war in Afghanistan, based on their past public statements. But the Tea Party -- which helped elect many of these new lawmakers -- seems to be increasingly skeptical and concerned about the increasing cost of the war. A recent poll by the Afghanistan Study Group found that two-thirds of conservatives support a troop reduction in Afghanistan. Seventy-one percent of conservatives overall and 67 percent of Tea Party supporters worry that the cost of the war "will make it more difficult for the United States to reduce the deficit this year and balance the federal budget by the end of this decade."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/afghanistan-republican-alternatives-meeting_n_813281.html

It seems that Norquist is calling on Republicans to consider an Afghan withdrawal simply because it will be politically expedient in 2012. That is, it might manage to garner the Republicans a few more votes for their presidential candidate. Disaffected Democratic voters, however, are smart enough not to take the bait, and won’t be voting for any Republican candidate in 2012 (they’ll return, predictably, to the Democratic Party). But Republicans aren’t angling for these disaffected Democrats. They’re aiming for Independents and swing voters.

It seems that he and other Republicans are hoping for an anti-war candidate to challenge Obama on the economic and national security merits of the war. But who do the Republicans have that could honestly carry out this task?

Clever, but ultimately futile.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/44292/election-2012-republicans-the-anti-war-party-no-so-fast/

On Afghanistan, they were either for continuing the war, against it, skeptical about it, or had no position.

There is no "isolationist" wing of the GOP. Of the Republicans' 47 senators and 242 representatives, only 5 percent (15 members) expressed support for cutting defense spending. Adding those in the "ambiguously for" category makes it 13 percent. Forty-one percent are against cutting defense spending; with those ambiguously against, it's 60 percent.
Only 10 Republicans, or 4 percent, are against the war in Afghanistan, and none are senators. Including the skeptical members, 10 percent are somewhat antiwar. Eighty percent support the war.

The tea party is not mellowing Republican militarism. If it were, freshman Republicans, who mostly proclaim allegiance to the movement, should be more dovish than the rest. That's not the case. Five of the 101 Republican freshmen and 10 of the 184 who aren't newcomers support cutting defense spending. That's about 5 percent of each group.
No new Republican opposes the war in Afghanistan outright. Including skeptics, 9 percent of freshmen and 11 percent of the rest are against the war.

Fewer new Republicans have defined positions on these issues. Veteran Republicans are more likely to be in the clearly "against cuts" and "for the war" categories; freshmen are more likely to be ambiguous or have no position. This ambiguity is a silver lining for advocates of military restraint: Many tea-party Republicans were elected without saying much about foreign policy and may yet emerge as non-interventionists.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/why-republicans-will-stay-hawkish-4767