[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: GOP May Change Afghan Endgame Republicans have vowed increased oversight if they win control of either, or both, chambers of Congress next Tuesday — and with the war in Afghanistan, there’s little doubt they would seek more clarity from the administration on an endgame. For starters, Republicans would almost surely press President Barack Obama to loosen the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, as well as seek assurances that he would be willing to send in more troops if Gen. David Petraeus, his commander there, asks for them. “Caps and deadlines are going to be very tough to defend with a beefed-up Republican majority in the House,” said Republican strategist John Ullyot, a former staffer for the Senate Armed Services Committee. “There is no question there will be a lot more pressure on the administration to give commanders as much time as they need; the summer deadline is going to be huge.” Any sharpened congressional oversight would come as the administration scrambles to show progress in the nine-year-old war. Sources suggest the White House may attempt to marginalize the National Security Council-led assessment that’s due this December and keep it low key. But if Republicans gain congressional control, observers suggest, they’ll push to unearth the administration’s thinking on the war and make it public. Republicans suspect that the administration is already planning to narrow the scope of its strategy in Afghanistan, limiting the number of troops that could be sent there and planning what could be a substantial drawdown beginning next summer. In the House, any new focus with GOP control would manifest itself early next year when California Rep. Buck McKeon, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, would very likely be chairman. Republican hawks have been vexed at what they see as a fundamental flaw in Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan: the July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops. Any potential success there, they fear, would be undermined by what the deadline telegraphs to insurgents about America’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan’s security. If Republicans win the House, and McKeon is at the helm of the Armed Services Committee, insiders say they would demand to know if Obama is willing to stick it out in Afghanistan for as long as it takes. And congressional hearings would surely abound. For its part, the administration has maintained it will honor the July 2011 drawdown date but has been cagey about how substantial it could be, calling it all “conditions-based.” And that leaves too much wiggle room for Republicans who believe it amounts to a “cut-and-run” strategy. Insiders say Republicans would use hearings to elicit a better explanation from the Pentagon about the administration’s strategy. The last of the 30,000 U.S. troops surging into Afghanistan arrived just last month, allowing troops to operate in places that, because of limited forces, had earlier been beyond reach. Now, there are 100,000 American troops and roughly 50,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan. And that’s in addition to the nearly 140,000 Afghan army troops working alongside NATO forces. So far, reports from the field indicate privately that NATO’s International Security Assistance Force has been successful at tamping down violence and protecting the population — the tenet of the counterinsurgency strategy. Operations in Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban, are now under way. Republicans, however, want to know whether the president would support a request from Petraeus for more troops — especially so-called enablers to support the combat troops already there. In his new book “Obama’s Wars,” Bob Woodward writes that the administration’s internal debate last year suggested that Obama will not entertain any additional deployments of troops to Afghanistan beyond the 100,000 there now. Under the current surge, Obama authorized 30,000 additional troops, with the flexibility to send in up to 10 percent more if additional support is required. Most of those “enablers” are already there. And administration officials contend they will consider any request from Petraeus. A push for more congressional oversight could come even this fall if the administration moves to downplay its December assessment. Petraeus, who has returned to Washington at other such junctures, may be told to stay away this time. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he would recommend to the president if it were advisable for Petraeus to testify publicly or if he should remain in Afghanistan, focused on operations. So far, it looks as if the December review will not be a fundamental pause for reflection. “The assessment is going to be conducted by second-stringers,” says one source close to the process. “There doesn’t seem to be the same gravitas or focus or sense of history about this one that previous assessments had,” the source said. And that may fuel Republicans’ concerns that the administration is on a predetermined course — that it will begin a substantial drawdown next summer. Another wild card in next Tuesday’s midterm elections is the tea party and its desire to stave off tax hikes and cut spending. But most analysts don’t see it holding that much sway over defense policy in Afghanistan. Still, administration officials will find themselves answering questions about the way ahead in Afghanistan. Jamie Fly, executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative in Washington, said the White House has done a poor job of reaching out to Republicans on its Afghanistan strategy — something he suggests will have to change quickly if Republicans win congressional control this fall. “The administration will have to think seriously about how it engages Republicans,” he said. “I certainly believe that many of these new members are going to be asking tough questions.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Time to get out.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
So the EndGame according to GOP, is that there will be no endgame. The Party of Property is all there is. It's a Big Club and you aren't in it. "Capitalism, and especially corporate capitalism, was once viewed as a system to be fought. But capitalism is no longer challenged in public discourse. Capitalist bosses, men such as Warren Buffett, George Soros and Donald Trump, are treated bizarrely as sages and celebrities, as if greed and manipulation had become the highest moral good. As Wall Street steals billions of taxpayer dollars, as it perpetrates massive fraud to throw people out of their homes, as the ecosystem that sustains the planet is polluted and destroyed, we do not know what to do or say. We have been robbed of a vocabulary to describe reality. We decry the excesses of capitalism without demanding a dismantling of the corporate state. Our pathetic response is to be herded to political rallies by skillful publicists to shout inanities like “Yes we can!” http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/the_world_liberal_opportunists_made_20101025/ The liberal class now honors an unwritten quid pro quo, one set in place by Bill Clinton, to cravenly serve corporate interests in exchange for money, access and admittance into the halls of power. The press, the universities, the labor movement, the arts, the church and the Democratic Party, fearful of irrelevance and desperate to retain their positions within the corporate state, will accelerate their purges of those who speak the unspeakable, those who name what cannot be named. It is the gutless and bankrupt liberal class, even more than the bizarre collection of moral and intellectual trolls now running for office, who are our most perfidious opponents." The first people guillotined in the French revolution. ;}
GTFO today. Blue States resent the effort to secure them. They have expressed that: Afghanistan is just the military industrial complex working to enrich the wealthy while expanding the American Empire. Anti terror funding is just more police state Orwellian tactics to enslave the people. It should not be a hard political decision for any party to stop defending Blue States. Get out of Afghanistan.
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|