Reed: Will GOP Pay For More Troops?

(CBS)  Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who has been in support of the administration's strategy for Afghanistan, said it cannot be assumed that Taliban control in Afghanistan would confer greater influence for al Qaeda.

"I think you have to question the assumption," he told CBS News Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"I think al Qaeda looks for ungoverned areas, wherever they may be. Again, the irony here is that al Qaeda has significantly reconstituted itself in Pakistan over the last several years. And we didn't, I would argue, pay the kind of attention we should have to Afghanistan and Pakistan."

He advocated taking a similar approach to the Taliban in Afghanistan as was taken with the Sunni tribes in Iraq.

"Try to pull away as many of the Taliban as we can who will swear that the government in Kabul is legitimate and they will support it," Reed said, noting that some "irreconcilables" will have to be "taken out."

On the Senate's response to the road ahead in Afghanistan, Reed - who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee - said, "The question not only should be asked, 'Will the Senate approve (and particularly Republicans) additional troops,' but 'Will they pay for it?' They've been notorious over the last eight years [for] sending troops but putting it on the tab for future generations."

Schieffer explained that given estimates of how much it costs to keep an American combat soldier in Afghanistan an additional 40,000 soldiers would add up to an additional $10 billion.

Reed said that the cost - and whether Senate Republicans would approve the additional expenditure - is a key part of the debate. "Glib assertions of sending more troops is something that we have to look behind in terms of many other factors. Do we have the civilian capacity to complement the troops? How much progress and how fast can we bring the Afghani army online?"

Reed and Schieffer noted that the cost of training an Afghani soldier is significantly less than keeping an American soldier in the region.

The Democrat asserted that while General Stanley McChrystal and his colleagues conducted a very good analysis of the situation in Afghanistan, their perspective on what is need is "rather narrow.

"It's military operational aspects. They assume we'll have civilians. They assume that this will be paid for. They assume that this can be sustained over time. The president doesn't have the luxury of those assumptions," Reed said, "and he has to look across the board."

The Senator would not commit to being convinced that an additional 40,000 combat troops are necessary in the region.

"We do not want to repeat mistakes previously of assuming a rather simplistic approach: more troops and more this, et cetera, and just go forward. I think now is the time for a fundamental analysis of all of the components. The president is doing that," he explained.

In response to Vice President Joe Biden's proposed drone strategy in Pakistan, Reed said that there is a need for counterterrorism forces on the ground in Afghanistan, not just unmanned drones.

Finally, he argued that cooperation with Pakistani forces is key. "That's a very delicate issue because they're very sensitive of their sovereignty, they're very sensitive of our presence in Pakistan."

Reed said that lately Pakistani forces have shown they are "generally fearful of their own situation, a willingness to cooperate more, to conduct operations in south Waziristan, to attack or allow drone operations in their air space."

[afmcalax]

Republicons have no trouble funding wars or our troops they just have trouble actually paying for it. They would much rather stick our grandchildren with their debt than make their neo-con supporters pay for the war they so dearly love.

[scubbasteve01]

Ask Michael Steele.

[vernique]

solution to problem:
1. supporters of the war pay a war tax on their income so there is no debt.
2. supporters of the war send their sons and daughters to fight the war
3. problem solved.

[ktorrent]

I can't see how you could possibly comprehend that if we don't do something in Afghanistan it will cost us more later. I have already had a "war tax" put on my personally because of what I suffered due to 9/11. The reality is, those who do support the war effort are in fact sending their sons and daughters and doing other things to support it. I would put my volunteer efforts in my community and on the war front against against anyone who says "let someone else fight the war" any day. I don't like the war, but without it, we are in trouble. This is one of those think before you post.

[pierson98]

ktorrent - this war is not only doing NOTHING to make us safer, it is actively making things worse. Our OWN Department of Defense has repeatedly reported that Al Qaeda is no longer maintaining a presence in Afghanistan. Remember Al Qaeda, the ones who attacked us on 9/11? I don't ask the question rhetorically, I honestly do not believe that you have the intelligence to remember. What we're doing in Afghanistan now is just trying to referee a rock-fight between tribes of people who are determined to live in the 8th century. It solves nothing, except to get Americans killed or wounded.

[egbvendors]

Of course they are going to pay for it - don't you remember, we're on paygo now, ya silly. After 8 years of Bush pork, and this year Obama-Dem pork (a budget that was "last year's business" and a measly $787 billion in more pork called stimulus, yes, I'm SURE Congress will pay for it. "Just one more box of bon-bons and I PROMISE I'll start a diet."

[skepticalJM]

They keep saying that keeping Afghanistan occupied is part of the strategy to keep America safe, what a crock of Bull. We have a Southern border to this country that is like a sieve that is continually leaking millions of illegals through it (each one carrying potential bombs) that no one is doing a damn thing to fix, yet instead of getting the army to come home and guard our borders as they should be, we're fighting a futile war that's killing more Americans than any terror attacks ever will. All of this has nothing to do with keeping America safe, even a damn fool can see that. What it is, is how much money the corporations can milk out of wars that only benefit them. Does anybody in this country even think about the American people any more? Certainly not our politicians and the talking heads!

[curse914]

I have said this so many times I get tired of repeating it. It is good to see someone else point out the irony of open borders to the south that could easily be crossed by a SAUDI Wahhabist like Osama the son of a rich SAUDI architect packing a bomb. Oh look, I pointed out something else ironic, we invaded Iraq when it was Saudis who knocked down the towers.

[amateurradio]

How UTTERLY hypocritical for ANY demo-criminal to suggest the Republicans should pay for the troops. It is the demo-criminals under the traitor who have TRIPLED the national debt in less than 10 months. It is the demo-criminals who are bankrupting the nation. It is the demo-criminals who are trying to ram their trillion dollar health care fraud plan down our throats. TRY DOING WHAT THE CONSTITUTION TELLS YOU TO DO, demo-criminals. Defend the nation. Stay the hell out of healthcare, the auto industry, banking and other places where you have no business being.

[ramos1129]

Senator Reed needs to answer how anyone, including the Taliban, can recognize the Karzai administration in view that it stole the Presidential elections.

BTW, since NATO is officially the force we are fighting under, should not the 40,000 additional troops come from NATO countries like England, France, Belgium, etc?

[cbsblogger]

We need a "War on Terror" tax on income, investment gains and dividends and on every Wall St transaction. Every US corporation should also be on the hook to contribute. It should not be put on the backs of generations yet to be born.

Every American entity should be required to pay a price for these wars in the Middle East that have little benefit for the USA and every wealthy American should be paying a much higher tab because they have the most to lose.

[curse914]

The wealthiest of Romans used to ride into battle first because they did have the most to lose and considered in an honor. We now have a system that makes it easy to send the poor off to die to protect the amassed wealth of a select few.

[W_A_H]

Yes Mr. Reed, disgorge whatever balances are in the failed stimulus fund to job stimulus programs that work, initiate tort reform and allow interstate insurance company competition as apposed to the health BEAST offered, lower taxes to initiate job growth and then we can begin defending this country with confidence. Other than this we must continue to sleep under the light of your Democratic moon until 2010.

[zamorin44]

Biden and Reed are the administration's current experts on Afghanistan.This is a huge story by itself.