Subject: [big campaign] On Afghanistan, Obama Deliberates, Conservatives Politicize
From: Adam Blickstein <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:39:44 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

On Afghanistan, Obama Deliberates, Conservatives Politicize

Washington, D.C. - President Obama met yesterday with congressional leaders from both parties to discuss the war in Afghanistan. The President pushed aside any notions about an all-or-nothing approach and explained that in the midst of the uncertainty stemming from the Afghan election, escalating violence, and a struggling Afghan government, his focus is not on rushing to a decision but on getting the strategy right. While the President is listening to all sides and engaged in this legitimate debate, conservatives are politicizing the debate through harsh attacks focused on scoring political points rather than constructive solutions.

Conservative calls for a massive military expansion in Afghanistan contradict an eight year record of failure, neglect, and incoherence on Afghanistan policy over which President Bush and his extreme conservative allies presided. Conservatives were the ones who continuously opposed requests for more troops from military commanders. This hypocrisy is best highlighted by Senator John McCain (R - AZ), who during the Afghan war, said repeatedly that the war had been won and that "no one threatened" us in Afghanistan. When it was clear the war was going badly, he called for the U.S. to "muddle through" in Afghanistan. Now, McCain and his fellow conservatives are politicizing their attacks and contradicting themselves by demanding that the President massively increase troops with haste, and unquestioningly follow the generals who McCain once ignored. These conservative political attacks lack credibility on Afghanistan not just because they demonstrate flip-flopped positions, but also because they are coming from the same people whose mismanagement of the war has led to Afghanistan's descent.

Obama administration continues to work intensively on Afghanistan strategy in the midst of a volatile situation there.  The Obama administration is intent on getting the strategy for Afghanistan right, a point illustrated by this morning's story in the Wall Street Journal, which described how two books on Vietnam - "Lessons in Disaster" by Gordon Goldstein and "A Better War" by Lewis Sorley - have been informing internal Administration debates.  According to the Journal, "'Lessons in Disaster' entered West Wing circulation after Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, one of the top foreign-policy voices in the White House, gave it to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel after reading it himself."  The Journal goes on to describe how today's debate, which has so far fixated largely on troop numbers, relates to discussions about Vietnam.  "'[Former National Security Advisor] Bundy said we debated a number and not a use,' said Gordon M. Goldstein, the ["Lessons in Disaster"] author, referring to troop deployments. 'That's a really critical observation which goes to the heart of what's going on right now in the White House.'"

In interviews last month, President Obama emphasized that he would bring a focused, methodical approach to determining the way forward in Afghanistan and would avoid adopting a strategy prematurely.  He said on Meet the Press that, "What I'm not also gonna do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question. Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there beyond what we already have...I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration." Appearing on CBS this weekend, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones reiterated this point, saying it is critical in this moment "to make sure that the strategic issues and the strategic decisions that the president will make are fully aired and vetted and that the options that the president has are also put on the table. It would be, I think, unfortunate if we let the discussion just be about troop strength."  [WSJ, 10/07/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB125487333320069331.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories&id=preview>. President Obama via Meet the Press, 9/20/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F32935603%2Fns%2Fmeet_the_press%2Fpage%2F3%2F&id=preview>. General Jones, CBS, via CQ, 10/04/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cqpolitics.com%2Fwmspage.cfm%3FdocID%3Dnews-000003216240&id=preview>]

In stark contrast, congressional conservatives sink to low levels by politicizing the  debate.  While the White House goes through tough deliberations to refine the strategy for Afghanistan, conservatives have actively politicized the debate.  Yesterday, according to Talking Points Memo, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) sent out a letter "calling Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to put Nancy Pelosi 'in her place' over the war in Afghanistan."  The letter went on to quote NRCC communications director Ken Spain, saying "[r]ather than listening to a four-star general's assessments on Afghanistan, General Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country's military policy." Matt Yglesias described the NRCC's statement as, "condescending sexism."

In addition, remarks by House of Representatives Minority Whip Eric Cantor demonstrate his hostility to President Obama's responsibilities as Commander in Chief, when he said yesterday that conservatives would only support the President if he deferred to military commanders on the ground: "I think it is a fair assessment right now that Republicans are committed to supporting this President if he says, yes, I will support our commanders on the ground." Such statements are only the latest in a larger pattern of extreme conservatives attempting to extort political benefits by using the military against the President.  This past weekend, Senator Jon Kyl accused White House officials of "being armchair generals," argued that the President should defer to the military leadership, and cautioned against "a big debate." Former Republican President candidate and Kyl's colleague from Arizona Senator McCain has pushed a similar position.  Last week McCain attempted to pass an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that would have required General Stanley McChrystal to testify before Congress, without complementary testimony from the civilian leadership involved in setting the strategy for Afghanistan.  The amendment failed, replaced by an amendment that respected the chain of command.  [TPM, 10/06/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fnrcc-mcchrystal-should-put-pelosi-in-her-place.php%3Fref%3Dfpb&id=preview>. Matt Yglesias, 10/06/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fyglesias.thinkprogress.org%2Farchives%2F2009%2F10%2Fnrcc-wants-to-put-pelosi-in-her-place.php&id=preview>. Rep. Eric Cantor, The Situation Room, 10/06/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0910%2F06%2Fsitroom.01.html&id=preview>. Senator Jon Kyl, 10/04/09]

Political attacks come after years of Conservative mismanagement of Afghanistan, which allowed the war to deteriorate year after year after year.

 *   Bush had no strategy for Afghanistan. Last month Secretary Gates, who also served in the Bush administration, said on CNN's State of the Union that President Obama has put forth the first real Afghanistan strategy in decades, adding that America had previously been stretched too thin there. He said, "Well, I will tell you, I think that the strategy that the President put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s. And that strategy was more about the Soviet Union than it was about Afghanistan... every - we were - we were too stretched to do more. And I think we did not have the kind of comprehensive strategy that we have now." [Robert Gates, CNN,9/27/09<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Ftranscripts.cnn.com%2FTRANSCRIPTS%2F0909%2F27%2Fsotu.01.html&id=preview>]
 *     From the beginning, the Bush administration underestimated the required troop levels necessary to secure Afghanistan.  According to the New York Times, "[t]he problems began in early 2002... when the United States and its allies failed to take advantage of a sweeping desire among Afghans for help from foreign countries." The Rumsfeld Pentagon "initially opposed a request by Colin L. Powell, then Secretary of State, and Afghanistan's new leaders for a sizable peacekeeping force and deployed only 8,000 American troops, but purely in a combat role, officials said."  [NY Times, 9/06/06<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Ffullpage.html%3Fres%3D9C0DE5DD1631F936A3575AC0A9609C8B63&id=preview>]
 *   In January 2007 more troops were requested by the military for Afghanistan, yet few were sent. "U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have recommended an increase in U.S. force levels, in part to deal with an expected upsurge in Taliban violence this year..."  Despite the commanders' recommendation, the Bush administration did not follow through and did not increase troop levels, leading to a continued deterioration of the situation on the ground. [CBS, 1/17/07<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2007%2F01%2F17%2Fterror%2Fmain2366189.shtml&id=preview>]
 *   The Bush administration consistently diverted attention from the greatest danger - Afghanistan and Pakistan - towards Iraq.  A 2008 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report showed that during the Bush administration, the war in Iraq had cost $608 billion over five years, while Afghanistan had seen just $140 billion over seven years. On average, the Iraq war received over $120 billion per year, while the war in Afghanistan received just $20 billion. CRS reported a similar trend for reconstruction, with Iraq receiving a total of $34.2 billion in reconstruction funding over five years and Afghanistan by comparison receiving just $11.5 billion over more than seven years. The under resourcing of the Afghanistan war and it concomitant failures are directly related to mistaken spending in Iraq. [Washington Post, 4/17/02<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA62618-2002Apr16&id=preview>. NY Times, 6/30/08<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2008%2F06%2F30%2Fwashington%2F30tribal.html%3F_r%3D1%26hp%3D%26adxnnl%3D1%26oref%3Dslogin%26adxnnlx%3D1214830070-Y8pWd4ALZ0hq8tO05LM1ZQ&id=preview>. CRS, 2/08/08<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=z46dradab.0.0.olnitxbab.0&ts=S0407&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fnatsec%2FRL33110.pdf&id=preview>]
###
Adam Blickstein
Communications Director
National Security Network
202-289-7113 (office)
617-335-0859 (mobile)
[email-masked]

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---