Right Web

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

House Votes Suggest Growing War Weariness

A slate of measures recently voted on in Congress reflect growing war weariness among elected officials and the U.S. public.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

In a sign of growing war weariness in Congress and among the general public, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted Thursay to bar the deployment of U.S. troops to Libya and narrowly defeated a provision requiring President Barack Obama to submit a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The latter measure, one of dozens of proposed amendments to the 690- billion-dollar 2011 defence authorisation bill, was defeated 204-215. Despite its defeat, the amendment, which is designed to press Obama to accelerate plans for the U.S. troop withdrawal that is scheduled to begin Jul. 1, got 42 more votes than a similar measure received last year.

Although the administration opposed the amendment, all but eight Democratic lawmakers voted for it. They were joined by more than two dozen Republicans, most of whom were voted into office for the first time last November.

"It sends a strong signal to the president that the U.S. House of Representatives and the American people want change," Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, who co-sponsored the amendment both this year and last, said shortly after the vote.

"The White House has got to be worried about its Afghanistan war strategy when an overwhelming majority of the Democrats in the House and 26 Republicans are saying the president needs to tell us how this war is going to end," said Jim Cason of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby group.

The House also adopted amendments banning the establishment of military bases in Libya and stating explicitly that approval of this year's defence budget should not be construed as an endorsement of Washington's more than two-month-old military intervention in Libya.

In spite of the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires the president to withdraw U.S. military forces from active hostilities within 60 days if Congress has not approved their deployment, Obama has not yet submitted a request, much to the frustration of many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Even as lawmakers indicated growing concern about the mounting costs and consequences of the military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya, however, hawkish Republicans, bolstered by a handful of Democrats approved a provision authorising the president to use military force against terrorism suspects in any country around the world where they may be found.

That provision, which was attached to the authorisation bill by the powerful Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee one week after the killing by U.S. Special Forces of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, survived an attempt to repeal it by a 187-234 margin.

The measure, which would significantly expand the authorisation approved by Congress in 2001 to take military action against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, was opposed by the White House.

It is also considered unlikely to be approved by the Democrat-led Senate which is scheduled to begin drafting its own version of the 2011 defence bill in mid-June. The two houses will eventually have to reconcile their different versions before the bill can go to Obama for signature or veto.

The latest votes, however, come amid growing unease about the course of Washington's military intervention in Libya, as well as a fierce debate – both inside and outside the administration – over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan in the aftermath of bin Laden's killing.

More than two months since the U.N. authorised a no-fly zone over Libya, U.S. and Western hopes that the regime of Col. Moammar Gaddafi would quickly collapse have been frustrated, and, as Obama made clear in a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron Wednesday, the current conflict may continue for a much longer period.

Much to the frustration of both Britain and France, which led the drive to intervene, Obama has always insisted that Washington's military role would be "limited" – confined mostly to refuelling, intelligence, and other support – and that other NATO powers and their Arab allies would have to bear most of the burden.

Despite the relatively limited nature of Washington's involvement, Congress, as well as the general public, has become increasingly anxious both about the costs of sustaining that intervention and the strategy for bringing it to an end.

That anxiety was reflected in the votes over the past two days on the defence bill, particularly by the easy passage of amendments banning the deployment of U.S. troops to Libya, the establishment of any military base there, and the explicit assertion that Congress has not authorised the ongoing deployment.

As noted by the Congressional Quarterly, the last amendment was "so non-controversial that it was adopted by voice vote, as was another amendment that requires the administration to report on the long-term costs of U.S. military operations in Libya." Last week, the Pentagon reported that Libya-related operations through mid-May had cost close to one billion dollars.

More significant, however, was the near-majority support garnered by the amendment requiring Obama to submit a withdrawal plan for Afghanistan, where about 100,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed. The plan, according to the amendment, should provide for "an accelerated transition of U.S. military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan."

Obama has promised to begin withdrawing troops Jul. 1 with the understanding that all combat troops will be out in 2014.

The administration is currently engaged in an intense internal debate on the pace of that withdrawal, and, specifically, how many troops will be withdrawn this summer.

While the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, has reportedly urged only a nominal drawdown of at most 5,000 and the continuation of the current "counter-insurgency" strategy (COIN), Vice President Joe Biden and Obama's political advisers have called for a more substantial reduction, as well as the adoption of a "counter-terrorist" strategy (CT) that would be less costly and permit Washington to withdraw most of its remaining forces more quickly.

As currently conducted, the COIN strategy is costing the U.S. Treasury about 10 billion dollars a month.

The unexpectedly strong vote in favour of the amendment co-sponsored by McGovern and a bipartisan group of other lawmakers is likely to strengthen the hand of the pro-CT forces within the administration.

"Five thousand on Jul. 1 and nothing else, that won't fly," warned Democratic Rep. John Garamendi during Thursday's debate. "That will create a great deal of anger."

The fact that more than two dozen Republicans – four times as many as last year and most of them newly elected – backed the measure was also taken here as another sign that patience with what has become the longest foreign war in U.S. history is running out.

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

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share