Dems Give Mixed Reviews of Obama's Afghan Plan

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Afghanistan

(CBS/ AP)

Democratic members of Congress continue to offer mixed, and largely skeptical, reactions to President Obama's announcement that he will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The president will need the support of Congress to fund the stepped up war effort, but his own party has largely been muted in its reaction to his plan.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) opposes the troop buildup and is skeptical a drawdown could begin by July 2011, as the president indicated.

"I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda," Specter said in a statement. "If Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?"

He added, "It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months, so there is really no exit strategy."

Specter's statement addressed a key point of contention with respect to the president's plan: a timeline for withdrawal. Mr. Obama indicated troops should begin to withdraw by 2011, but he did not say when they would be fully out of Afghanistan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), for one, gave his unequivocal support for the president's plan. And he offered support for the timetable.

"President Obama made a convincing case that sending additional troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is critical to our national security," Reid said in a statement.

"More than anything, I am pleased that he made clear that our resources are not unlimited and our commitment is not open-ended," he continued. "By laying out a strategy that will begin to bring our mission to a close within the next 18 months, the president drew an essential distinction between his approach to the war and that of the previous administration."

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he is reserving judgment: "President Obama asked for time to make his decision on a new policy in Afghanistan. I am going to take some time to think through the proposal he presented tonight."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she firmly opposes adding more troops: "I support the president's mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaeda," she said.

Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), who filled the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, said he remains skeptical about a significant troop build up "when the legitimacy of our Afghan partner is in serious question."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) stated flatly in a statement following the speech last night that he does "not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest."

"It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy," he said. "Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered."

On the House side, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released a statement Tuesday night that reserved judgment of the plan.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chair of House Armed Services Committee, said he is "pleased President Obama agreed to provide the resources to get Afghanistan right."

He added, however, "I have a number of questions to which I hope we can get answers—for example, the role of Pakistan, how specifically we will measure progress over time, what additional resources we will need on the civilian side of the effort, how we will manage strain on our forces, and how we expect the government of Afghanistan to be reformed."

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), who chairs the foreign operations subpanel of the House Appropriations Committee, also gave reserved support for the president's plan.

"Sending our brave and patriotic service members into harm's way is a solemn responsibility, and President Obama has provided the thoughtful leadership it requires," she said. "However, in my judgment, the most critical questions that must be answered are the scope of our mission, benchmarks to measure progress, and plans for transferring security and governance responsibilities to the Afghans themselves."

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said the Bush administration made a "fatal mistake" when it turned its focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, but he added that he is unconvinced Mr. Obama's plan will work.

"The president's speech tonight did not convince me that his policy is worth supporting," he said. "Last week, I attended a memorial service for seven servicemen from the same striker brigade from Fort Lewis who were killed on the same day in Afghanistan. I will not vote to send another troop to Afghanistan until I'm convinced that this strategy will succeed."

Rep. David Obey (D – Wisc.), the Democratic chair of the House appropriations committee, told CBS News' Katie Couric last night that the war must be paid for. President Obama did not specify in the speech how he planned to cover the costs of the troop surge.

"The fact is we've been told all throughout the health care debate that we must pay for every dollar of that bill," Obey said. "Well if that's the case they why should we not also pay for this effort? This effort is not just going to cost $30 billion on top of what we're already spending in Afghanistan – it's going to cost over $90 billion in a year."

More on Afghanistan:

Full Text of Obama's Remarks
Bob Schieffer: "Defining Moment" of Obama Presidency
McChrystal "Absolutely" Supports Timeline
Troops, Families Brace for Surge

Congress Scrutinizes New Afghan Plan
Marc Ambinder's Analysis: Obama Taking Big Risk
Mark Knoller: No Mention of "Victory"
McCain: No Deadlines for Afghan Withdrawal
Rep. Obey: Afghan War Must Be Paid For
Obama's Surge Comes with Expiration Date

Who Offers the Better Deal in Afghanistan?
Liberals Chastise Afghanistan Troop Increase
Polling Analysis: Afghanistan 2009 Vs. Iraq 2007
CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

5 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

by pensacola8-2009 December 2, 2009 7:44 PM EST

The 30,000 troop increase might work, if these other conditions are in place:

1. Iraq continues to stabilize and not impede the troop reduction efforts occurring there.

2. Iran doesn't decide to fuel additional resistance beyond it's current level.

3. No other countries, begin or increase fueling of covert resistance against us.

4. Afghan government improves and strengthens.

5. Islamic accetpance of a pro-western government in Afghanistan is gained by all the nations with interests in the region.

As for corruption in the Pakistani, and Afghan governments, businessman all look for opportunities in the forbidden and contraband, for high profit and guaranteed revenue streams. It will be impossible to stop businessmen who organize together for profit. Even Osama Bin Laden himself bought himself a forbidden commodity - defiant government - and started operating it for profit.

I won't expect any of the conditions in the region to remain favorable for a success. Iraq might even fall and revert back to it's former style of government. The politics of all the players are just too dirty to win the pot. I see this as another wishful gambler entering a casino with unrealistic expectations of winning. It would be far better to recall all the troops and reunite with each of them, enjoy an economic recovery, and protect our way of life more actively without use of military force.

Gates is a Cold War mentality leader. He is obsolete and incompetent. The sooner he is dismissed, the better off the USA will be.

Reply to this comment


by nearl451 December 2, 2009 11:57 PM EST: Perhaps Gates is not flexible enough in mind. But most of the military leaders and advisors are not either. I certainly would not call him "Cold War" in philosophy; just more traditional. Alot of Military and ex-military, Dem and Repub Pols are that way as well.

He certainly is miles better than Rumsfeld, with his minimalist approach.

I really don't know what the President should have done here. He doesn't appear to have been advised with any good choices and he is not strong enough in this area to develop his own plan out of whole cloth.

I am dissapointed; but I don't know what should have been proposed instead.


by us_1776 December 2, 2009 4:12 PM EST: The problem is that Afghanistan was left to languish by Bush/Cheney and now it is in such bad shape that almost no strategy can be developed to save this country. And that is why so many of us feel that it is almost a lost cause because it was ignored so long under Bush. I just don't see how our military can pull this one out considering how bad things are.; Reply to this comment


by Treadlightly2 December 2, 2009 1:05 PM EST: I have heard a rumor that a lot of people who got tired of this taxation without representation that is a part of what you have outlined here have taken it apon themselves to work off the books under the table and pay no taxes. Many of them have abandoned the entire system by simply working for cash and avoiding banks completely.But like I said it IS just a rumor.; Reply to this comment


by amacd385 December 2, 2009 12:48 PM EST: The key to understanding the impossibility of Obama?s dilemma is that he is trying to defend a Global Empire with American blood and treasure.

Obviously Obama will not articulate this reality, and thus his plan entails seminal incongruities, which are seen by a few, but sensed by the wider audience of Americans.

Obama has tried to gloss over these incongruities by using the historical techniques of Empires? salesmen --- he has engendered fear by characterizing the enemy as a ?spreading cancer?, or ?falling dominos? like communism --- but the real spreading cancer is the Global Empire that hired him to guilefully defend it with American blood and treasure.

Historically, the salesmanship of Empire has always been based on promising the domestic population that they will share the ?spoils of war?, or the ?safety of winning?, in return for fighting, and paying, for imperialist adventures.

But Obama, although a consummate salesman, will encounter increasing resistance from the American populus because of the unique incongruities of fighting and paying for a Global Empire with domestic dollars and dead, and without any benefits actually accruing to the American public.

Obama?s dilemma in selling and defending the escalation of war first in Afghanistan, and then in Central Asia and the greater Middle East, is the same as his dilemma regarding his escalating defense of the very same Global Empire on Wall Street ---- that all the benefits are privatized and all the costs are socialized.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine; Reply to this comment