Last December, President Obama told the American people that we would begin to withdraw our forces next July. The American people deserve to know if that plan is still in place, and how we’re going to get there.
So last month, U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and I offered an amendment in the House of Representatives that would have required the Obama Administration to submit a plan – an exit strategy – to explain how they intend to meet the president’s commitment.
162 members of the House – including nine Republicans – voted for my amendment. That vote reflects a deepening worry in Congress about the direction of our policy.
Everyone talks about the need for a political solution in Afghanistan. But at the end of the day, that political solution is up to the Afghan people. They have to decide the future of their country. They have to decide if they can live together in peace.
Much has been made about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s comments in Rolling Stone magazine about Vice President Joe Biden and other members of the Obama administration.
But this is much bigger than a few ill-considered comments. We have lost over a thousand of our brave soldiers. Thousands more have been wounded.
Elsewhere in the article, a senior adviser to Gen. McChrystal said, “If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.” As I travel throughout the 3rd Congressional District, it’s becoming clear that he was right. More and more people are telling me that they are worried that we are becoming bogged down in Afghanistan.
The recently published WikiLeaks documents paint a disturbing picture: corruption and incompetence in the Afghan government; questions about the role of the Pakistani intelligence services; confusing rules of engagement for our soldiers. The “same old, same old” is simply not working.
I voted in 2001 to go to war in Afghanistan – to hunt down al-Qaida and eliminate their threat. I would cast that same vote today – in a heartbeat. Al-Qaida remains a threat, and we must redouble our efforts to destroy them wherever they are – in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, and elsewhere around the world.
But what we are doing in Afghanistan today is far beyond that original authorization. We are engaged in extensive, expensive “nation-building” in a very complicated, dangerous part of the world.
And frankly, given the level of unemployment and the severe economic situation we face in the United States, I’d rather do a little more “nation-building” here at home.
We have borrowed $350 billion – added to the debt – for the war in Afghanistan.
Some in Washington have refused to support extending unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans because, they say, we can’t afford it. We’re told we can’t afford to help small businesses and entrepreneurs with tax incentives. We’re told we can’t afford to improve our roads and bridges or help more families afford a college education. We’re told we can’t afford to prevent foreclosures or to improve child nutrition.
But Congress just voted to borrow another $33 billion for nation-building in Afghanistan.
We don’t have the money to help American working families, but when it comes to supporting a corrupt and incompetent Karzai government, we’re supposed to be a bottomless pit? That makes no sense.
If we are to get serious about getting our deficit and debt under control, the money we are spending in Afghanistan must be part of the discussion.
This is life and death. This is about sending our troops into harm’s way. This is about whether or not we can afford to continue this policy.
We must continue to ask tough questions and demand straight answers. Our soldiers deserve nothing less.
U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern represents the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives.
Read more at JimMcGovern.com
I would love to see an exit strategy too, but I now the Republicans will say that any public discussion of an exit strategy aids and abets the enemy.
<
p>Why can’t we get a simple resolution or policy statement that says, “This is what winning means”. I defended this approach over and over during the 2008 campaign, but I still see no difference between this and war for the sake of war. One obtainable benchmark, is that asking too much?
We’ll exit as soon as Obama feels he can do so without those mean people thinking he’s a wimp. That’s why we’re there.
It played on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Ave through the ’60s and 1/2 way through the ’70s. It was a grand farce. A lot of public involvement. The main actors made millions. The extras? Eh, not so good. But this promises a longer run than Oklahoma!
<
p>”We must continue to ask tough questions and demand straight answers.”, won’t end perpetual war. You can question and demand ’till your blue in the face. Too much money is being made to end the racket. Congress sings, “I Cain’t Say No.”
<
p>It won’t stop until voters tire of this production and start voting for the “other guy” whoever he or she may be. Then, just maybe, the Congress will -all of a sudden- realize they control the purse strings and can shut off the war whenever they please.
<
p>That’s how the original “Miss Saigon” ended. Congressmen Kucinich and Paul seem to have a plan, talk to either of them.
First off I think this is the most telling quote
<
p>
<
p>This doesn’t have to happen though. The War Powers Act gives Congress, not the President, the authority to set not only funding, but also the mission and the goals of the forces at hand. I would argue that the Biden plan needs to be approved, send in a team of special forces and drones to kill the terrorists and give up on making Afghanistan a liberal democracy, that is a mission bound for failure
<
p>Here are a few broader questions though
<
p>How will you stand up to the strong lobby that feels that women need to be protected from the Taliban, particularly in light of that Time cover, how will you assert that its unrealistic and sadly we can’t do anything without losing political cover?
<
p>Again that was a great quote, but how will convince your fellow liberals and progressives to finally abandon the Wilsonian notion of liberal foreign policy for a realist alternative?
<
p>Since you oppose nation building will you stop the slow drumbeat to war with Iran and the Sudan that is building within the corridors of this administration, particularly from the likes of Sec. Clinton and Amb. Rice?
<
p>As a prominent opponent of the Darfur genocide will you conclusively take military action off the table as an equally unfeasible nation building exercise? Will you end the mission to Bosnia and Kosovo as well and bring those troops home?
<
p>If you are serious about your quote you can’t just re-examine our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the world. The mission of our armed forces has to be, on an international level, limited to protecting America, its citizens, and is interests. We cannot be the world’s policeman, and that message needs to be sent to our allies and in your case to your fellow liberals who still think we an be. Rep. Jones is a fine American trying to restore the original foreign policy tradition of this country, no nation building, no entanglements, and no less a war hero than George Washington exercised that opinion. We must lead by the power of our example, not the example of our power.
After a lot of deliberation and not a little fanfare, the Obama Administration announced their new policy on Afghanistan. From the New York Times on July 31, we read that, with less deliberation and no fanfare, they have changed that policy:
It seems to me that one should be in Afghanistan to pursue a strategy not for the purpose of staying in Afghanistan.
<
p>If the strategy doesn’t work, you leave.
Thats a Catch-22 right there, almost ripped straight from the book.
<
p>Eisenhower warned that the military industrial complex would lead to a permanent national security state that would actively seek self-sustaining, stalemated wars to ensure that the military is always actively needing to purchase new equipment. Conservatives from Smedley Butler, to Ike, to Goldwater, to Andrew Bacevich have argued the same thing, alongside committed progressives. Neoconservatism is just the logical outgrowth of liberal Wilsonian internationalism. It is time both ideologies were put to rest.
<
p>I stand opposed to both liberals and conservatives using the military for ideological, rather than defensive ends. We cannot remake the world in our own image, we cannot be the worlds policeman, and we cannot go around searching for dragons to slay. All of our founders who agreed on little agreed on that principle. It is time we go back to an interest based, realpolitik that protects America instead of entangling it in un-winnable wars.
<
p>With even the CIA Director conceding that Al Qaeda is virtually defeated in Afghanistan it begs the question what are we doing there? The Taliban never attacked America. Why are we propping up an illegitimate, corrupt, puppet government in Diem, er Karzai?
<
p>It is time for a moderate strategy, one that does not pull out unilaterally but does not commit our presence permanently either. One that pinpoints where the terrorists are and wipes them out, and it is one that Bacevich, Biden, and other strategists have argued could be more successful than this mission and involve merely a few thousand troops (mostly special Ops) instead of a massive, never ending, expanding commitment. Obama’s decision to approve the surge ranks up there with the worst foreign policy decisions alongside the Gulf of Tonkin and the Iraq War. How come no one is discussing the broader point of the Rolling Stone and WikiLeaks articles? That we are pursuing a strategy doomed to fail? One our own troops question?
some trans-national corporation’s pipeline rights and or that access to black-ops money from the poppy crops? Yes a very sad day in history this is.
that is something America must subscribe to.