Reaction to Obama's speech reveals GOP split over Afghanistan

Pablo Martinez Monsivais-Pool/Getty Images

President Obama's announcement tonight of a drawdown in U.S. surge forces from Afghanistan met with the dismissal and skepticism that one would expect from Republicans.

However, there is a split in the reaction: some Republicans are toting the hawkish line of following the wishes of the military and to continue to put forward a strong national defense. Others suggest the war should be ended sooner to save the hundreds of billions of dollars the government spends in Afghanistan yearly.

Even the candidates running to replace President Obama are somewhat split. They are all trying to appeal to GOP voters who oppose the president, but also to the many Americans who oppose the continued war effort in Afghanistan as well as those who want government spending reduced at all costs. The reactions of three of the leading Republicans show a wide range in the reaction among the president's opponents.

The newest member of the Republican candidates club, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, was quick to dismiss the president's action as not enough in light of mounting costs and growing debt.

"With America mired in three expensive conflicts, we have a generational opportunity to reset our position in the world in a way that makes sense for our security as well as our budget," wrote Huntsman. "Now it is time we move to a focused counter-terror effort which requires significantly fewer boots on the ground than the President discussed tonight. We need a safe but rapid withdrawal which encourages Afghans to assume responsibility, while leaving in place a strong counter intelligence and special forces effort proportionate to the threat."

Obama: This is beginning of the end of the Afghanistan war
Transcript of President Obama's remarks
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney put the onus of approval on the military, but noted that political and fiscal issues should not be factors in a decision about troop deployments.

"We all want our troops to come home as soon as possible, but we shouldn't adhere to an arbitrary timetable on the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. This decision should not be based on politics or economics. America's brave men and women in uniform have fought to achieve significant progress in Afghanistan, some having paid the ultimate price. I look forward to hearing the testimony of our military commanders in the days ahead," he said.

But Tim Pawlenty, another Republican candidate and former governor of Minnesota, said the president's decision shows a defeatist attitude, abandoning the goal of victory and ignoring the will of the war's top General, David Petraeus.

"I thought his speech was deeply concerning," said Pawlenty on Fox News. "Look how he phrased the outcome of this war. He said we need to end the war, quote unquote, responsibly. When America goes to war, America needs to win. We need to close out the war successfully, and what that means now is not nation-building. What it means is to follow General Petraeus's advice and to get those security forces built up where they can pick up the slack as we draw down," he said in reaction to the Mr. Obama remarks.

Video: Obama's full speech on Afghanistan

Some congressional Republicans took a hard line against the draw down.

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wrote a statement via twitter: "We've undercut a strategy that was working."

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, followed suit with what is now typical response from Republicans to Mr. Obama's foreign policy decisions, suggesting the president puts politics ahead of security. "I am concerned about the President's plan to begin troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. We are in a very precarious place in Afghanistan right now. It seems the President is trying to find a political solution with a military component to it, when it needs to be the other way around," wrote Rogers.

McCain: "Unnecessary risk" in Obama's Afghanistan plan
Dem senator: Change the mission in Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, who will pick up where the U.S. leaves off?

Freshmen Senator Marco Rubio hit at both issues. He suggested the war be ended, but pushed the White House to prove that the drawdown strategy will accomplish the vital national security goal of the war effort.

"After a decade of fighting, the American people are weary of war. Facing massive unemployment and a growing national debt, they are weary of the effort's cost. So am I. But the answer to a bad situation is not to make it worse. And I have always believed that a troop withdrawal plan based not on progress towards our ultimate goal, but rather on a desire to hit certain numbers, would be a tragic mistake," wrote Rubio, a Tea Party backed Republican from Florida.

"Yes, American troops need to leave Afghanistan, but they should do so pursuant to a plan that accomplishes our vital goal. I hope that in the days to come, the President will more clearly articulate how his troop withdrawal plan does that," he added.

[ambiensideeffects]

I'm not one to criticize the president, but in this case I totally disagree with his stance on the war in Afghanista?n. As a ex service man myself, I think he should have recommende?d a much larger draw down. There have been substantia?l evidence of the corruption?s in Afghanista?n - so what purpose do we serve being there "nation building", for how long? I support the complete withdrawal of all military personnel.?..We could use those billion of dollars in the USA considerin?g the economical turmoil that is impacting the country. In the months ahead I hope he reconsider?s.

<a href="http://www.ambien-side-effects.com/ambien-addiction-guide/">Ambien addiction</a>

[Truth_Tracker]

Another Obama "cut the baby in half" solution. Someone needs to explain to Obama and all politicians that "Solomon's Solution" (cut the baby in half) was NEVER considered an 'acceptable' solution. King Solomon was trying to determine who was the rightful biological mother of an infant, where two women both claimed the baby was theirs. After laboring to decide who the real mother was, King Solomon finally issued the decision and decree that the baby was to be cut in half, with one-half of the infant's body given to each woman. Upon hearing this, the 'real' biological mother came forward and said "I will withdraw my claim; let the other woman have the infant." In doing this, King Solomon then realized this woman was the 'real' mother - with the compassion of a true mother, and he declared her to be the mother who should be given the infant. Once and for all, may all politicians throughout the World forever know that King Solomon had no intention of "cutting the baby in half." King Solomon at no time actually believed this was an equitable, viable or humane solution. King Solomon only proffered the absurd decision and decree for the purpose of "smoking out" the true mother of the infant. So to politicians everywhere - STOP CUTTING THE BABY IN HALF - and stop mis-portraying that atrocity as an equitable, viable, humane "solution." In fact, it is merely a gutless refusal to "Do the right thing" - a coward's refusal to make the right decision because it might offend somebody.

[pasha128]

by justme2012 June 23, 2011 10:17 AM EDT
I've not seen any evidence of democrats having any independent ideas. They are always in lockstep with their boss.
---


How many unanimous votes do the Democrats get in the legislature compared to the Republicans -- the party that operates in lockstep with their leaders are clearly using actual statistics based on real facts the REPUBLICANS.

[pasha128]

Which party repeatedly proposes purity tests for their candidates?

-- THE REPUBLICANS.


Which party repeatedly calls for the ouster of members that DO NOT vote in lockstep?

-- The TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS.

[WeHappyFew]

Republicans are just typical.

After the bellicose spluttering of "This is Obama's war now why aren't we getting a draw down?"
answer "The commanders can't manage without them yet."

"Well is he the Commander in Chief or not? Troops out now!"

Okay. 23'000 troops home by December 2012.

"OH MY G*D!!! OBAMA'S PUTTING OUR TROOPS AT RISK DRAWING THEM DOWN!! ALL OUR WORK WILL BE UNDONE!!!"


Make your mind up people.

[pasha128]

The Republicans do not want to lose Bush's wars in Iraq or Afghanistan only "Obama's war in Libya" as the Republicans demonstrate to NATO we are not a reliable ally.

[justme2012]

Democrats, as good little sheep, have no mixed feelings. They simply blindly follow their dictator.

[justme2012]

I've not seen any evidence of democrats having any independent ideas. They are always in lockstep with their boss.

[WeHappyFew]

Justme2012,

Legally wilfully blind.

[MarineVet64]

Patriot who supports our Commander in Chief during a war, or.....
Anti American GOP economic terrorist who supports Halliburton and Blackwater continuing to bleed the taxpayers in a losing battle.
Tough choice.

[naksuthin]

Who cares what Politicians think of the Afghan war

HERE'S WHAT THE VOTERS THINK

An ABC News/Washington Post poll this month showed 54 percent of Americans no longer think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting, and 73 percent believe a "substantial number" of troops should be brought home this summer.

In a Pew Research Center survey this month, 56 percent of respondents said U.S. troops should leave Afghanistan as soon as possible, rather than wait until that country is stable. That's up from 32 percent who said leave ASAP in 2008.

A CBS News poll this month showed 64 percent want to see a decrease in U.S. troops, compared with 24 percent in 2009. A CNN poll showed 62 percent of Americans now oppose the war, up from 46 percent in 2009.

[RobAla]

You are right. President Obama is not pulling troops out because the Afghan government is stable and able to control threats of terrorism; nor is he following the advice of his military command. This is all about the 2012 election, and President Obama hopes this will lead to staying in the Whitehouse.

The killing of Bin Laden did not end terrorism against the people of the United States. Whether President Obama is re-elected or not; if terrorist gain control of Afghanistan again, it will jeopardize the safety of every American. If this happens, President Obama will be looked on in history as an irresponsible President who placed the safety of Americans below a political career. Time will tell.

If our troops, who are in harms way, suffer greater casualties because they don't have sufficient numbers to take of each other - this political move will prove to be a deadly one. Time will tell.

[longtree-2009]

would be interesting to know how many of these politicians actually served in the military especially in infantry type mos. mccain served but as a pilot and chose to stay in hanoi prison as a pow even when offered release. the national debt cannot sustain the continuted limited wars in afghanistan, iraq and now libya. libya being the war that obama entered all on his own. bin laden is dead, saddam is dead. both iraq and afghanistan have had more than enough years to restart but they have failed. the money being spent on these limited wars, after all these years, could be best spent on rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and more. obama has to go. he should have announced the withdrawal of the 30 thousand he ordered to afhanistan just 18 months ago by end of september 2011. if you support these wars, expect you are enlisting. right?

[MarineVet64]

McCain murdered over 300 sailors when he was fooling around on the deck of the Forrestal and fired off one one of his missiles. What's a few thousand more grunts to him?????????????

[crimsonjack]

The republicans can never be satisfied with anything or any decisons that Obama makes. The facts are they can never admit to their own mistakes or that Obama has reversed the trickled down Bush administration disaster that America was headed for, which would have been even more lost of jobs to overseas, bankrupted auto industries,more bank collapses,a more larger number of unemployed workers, and the rich only affording a cadillac healthcare policy. Obama had done more good for America in 2 years than Bush did the whole 8 years that he and his get-rich friends were allowed to ruin America! People that blame Obama for the shape we are in, are foolish, nieve, and just looking for someone to blame for the results of bills and legislation passed before Obama even became a candidate for president! These people are pathetic when it comes to the facts of realizing that the republicans had said that they hope Obama would be a one term president, and that they would vote against every bill that Obama and the democrats introduce to congress! So, you see, "Obama was keeping his promise to the American people, it's just that the republicans was voting "NO" to block him, then afterward say that Obama didn't keep any of his promises to the American people! And guess what! The nieve and foolish people believed the republicans and started calling President Obama a liar! Now how is that for stupity? Some folk don't believe the truth even when it is evidence in their own face! Obama is not the problem with our nation, the idiots whose only agenda is to unseat him in 2012 are the problem! What have they done as U.S. congressmen other than vote "NO" and talk about replacing Obama as president in 2012?

[wantunbiasednews]

This "news" story didn't talk about the differences of opinion in the democrat party on this topic. I am unimpressed.