Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Debate Rages over US Withdrawal

With the war in Afghanistan showing no great signs of progress, the debate on Capitol Hill is shifting ever so slightly toward a faster withdrawal.

Inter Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jun 8, 2011 (IPS) – With only three weeks left before U.S. military forces are scheduled to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan, the debate over the size and pace of that withdrawal has become increasingly intense.

On one hand, the Pentagon, backed by prominent neo-conservatives and other hawks, insists that the 18-month-old "surge" of 30,000 U.S. troops has turned the strategic tide against the Taliban.

Anything more than a "modest" drawdown of a few thousand of the nearly 100,000 soldiers and marines there through the end of the year, they argue, risks losing all that has been gained.

"I would hope that (the withdrawal) is very small," the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, told the Financial Times this week. "I would hope that it is 3,000. We need another fighting season (against the Taliban)."

On the other hand, President Barack Obama's political advisers, backed by a strong majority of Democrats and a small but growing minority of Republicans in Congress, are arguing for a much more substantial withdrawal.

In the clearest marker so far, the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, said this week that at least 15,000 troops should be withdrawn between July and the end of the year.

His appeal came just days after the ranking Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees the Pentagon's budget, Rep. Norm Dicks, shocked Washington by calling for an end to the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan before 2014. Current plans call for the U.S. and its NATO allies, which have sent more than 40,000 troops, to withdraw all their combat forces by the end of that year.

"We need to start seeing if we can do this (withdrawal) a little faster," Dicks, a veteran Democratic hawk, told Politico.

"I think the American people would overwhelmingly like to see this brought to a conclusion sooner than 2014," he said, citing growing "war fatigue" in Congress.

Obama, who has promised that the initial withdrawal will be "significant", has otherwise kept his cards close to his chest. The White House said he was still waiting to receive formal recommendations from the outgoing defence secretary, Robert Gates, who met with military commanders during a three-day farewell visit of Afghanistan that began on the weekend.

The withdrawal debate has intensified steadily since the May 2 killing by U.S. Special Forces of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden at a compound in the Pakistani resort town of Abbottabad where he had apparently been living for six years. Until then, it appeared that the Pentagon and its civilian allies would prevail upon Obama to withdraw only a "modest"—if not token—number of troops in July and through the end of the year.

But bin Laden's demise gave new momentum to the war's critics who have long argued that Al-Qaeda had, for all practical purposes, left Afghanistan in 2001 and that Washington's military-led counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy there was overly ambitious and largely ineffective, if not counter-productive.

"We've gone from being waist- to chest-deep in quicksand," noted Matthew Hoh, who directs the Afghanistan Study Group and served in Afghanistan as both a Marine captain and a State Department adviser.

At the same time, the growing focus in Congress about the yawning government deficit has cast a harsher light on the war's enormous cost – some 10 billion dollars a month, not including another 300 million dollars a month for civilian-led aid projects.

It was these considerations, as well as unhappiness with U.S. military operations in Libya, that led late last month to near- passage by the House of Representatives of an amendment to the 690- billion-dollar 2011 defence authorisation bill that required Obama to submit a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops and "an accelerated transition" of U.S. operations there to the Afghan government.

The amendment, which was defeated 204-215, gained the votes of all but eight Democrats and 26 Republicans – a total of nearly 42 more votes than a similar measure last year.

The vote, which was taken as a strong indication of war weariness, appears to have tilted the balance in the debate, as the Pentagon and its backers stepped up their public campaign for a "modest" withdrawal of just a few thousand troops beginning in July.

Thus, a Washington Post/ABC poll released earlier this week that showed a sharp increase – from 31 percent last March to 43 percent after bin Laden's death – in the percentage of people who believe that the war in Afghanistan has been worth the costs was seized on by one former Bush administration adviser as evidence that Obama "probably has the political breathing room" to choose a "measured withdrawal" as opposed to a "rapid retreat".

The same survey, however, showed found that three out of four respondents favoured withdrawing "a substantial number of U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan this summer".

At the same time, Kimberly and Frederick Kagan, neo-conservative military analysts close to the outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that "nothing about conditions on the ground justifies the withdrawal of any U.S. or coalition forces".

Moreover, they warned, if Obama withdraws all 30,000 "surge" forces by the end of 2012, "the war will likely be lost."

Gates, who has called for a "modest" drawdown, has not offered a specific number, but, since the House vote, in particular, he has made clear that he wants as few combat troops as possible to leave.

"I think we shouldn't let up on the gas too much, at least for the next few months," he said over the weekend. He has also hinted that he will speak out publicly in support of the current strategy after he steps down at the end of the month.

Whether this will be enough to sway Obama, who has been criticised by his fellow-Democrats for deferring too much to the military, remains to be seen.

But it is clear that disillusionment with the war is spreading in both parties.

Releasing a highly critical staff report on the effectiveness and sustainability of U.S. aid programmes in Afghanistan Wednesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry expressed strong doubts about the current strategy.

"While the United States has genuine national security interests in Afghanistan," said Kerry, a key foreign policy ally of the White House, "our current commitment, in troops and dollars, is neither proportional to our interests nor sustainable."

His remarks were seconded by the Committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar. "Despite 10 years of investment and attempts to better understand the culture and the region's actors, we remain in a cycle that produces relative progress but fails to deliver a secure political or military resolution," he said.

"Undoubtedly, we will make some progress when we are spending more than 100 billion dollars per year in that country. The more important question is whether we have an efficient strategy for protecting our vital interests that does not involve massive open-ended expenditures and does not require us to have more faith than is justified in Afghan institutions," he said.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share