Today in Washington D. C. - Dec 2, 2009
The Senate resumed consideration of the Reid substitute amendment to H.R. 3590, the vehicle for Democrats’ health care reform bill.
Months after General Stanley McChrystal first made his request for more troops in Afghanistan, President Obama finally laid out his strategy in a speech at West Point last night. The president will order 30,000 more troops to the country to “target the insurgency and secure key population centers” and “train competent Afghan security forces.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said, “I support the President’s decision to follow the advice of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal in ordering the same kind of surge in Afghanistan that helped turn the tide in Iraq.” And the Los Angeles Times writes today, “In some ways, Obama’s new tack borrows directly from the ‘surge’ that his predecessor, George W. Bush, launched in Iraq in 2007 . . . .”
Yet the White House seems to have avoided making this comparison. Obama is facing serious problems with the left wing of the Democrat party, as The New York Times noted: “[S]everal senior Democrats took sharp exception to the president’s plan, illustrating the deep divide in the party over the conflict.” The Times described the reaction from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “noncommittal” and pointed out that “the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a close ally of the president, said he was not yet ready to render judgment.” And, the NYT writes, “Other Democrats quickly weighed in against the troop increase, making it clear they were prepared to break with the president.”
It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t want to remind those in his party who dislike his decision to follow the advice of his generals that he is continuing many of former President George W. Bush’s policies in the Middle East. Perhaps that’s why he spent so much time attacking Bush policies in his speech last night.
It may also explain why Obama and his aides spent a lot of time emphasizing timelines and when the surge forces could begin to withdraw. As the L.A. Times notes, “where Bush’s escalation came wrapped in promises that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq until victory was achieved, no matter what the cost, Obama’s troop buildup is all about exit strategies . . . .” But last night Obama said, “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.” And The Wall Street Journal reports, “A year from now, the administration plans to assess progress in the war and decide how quickly to withdraw the 30,000 troops in the surge.”
Conditions on the ground are the right criteria to judge how quickly American forces can withdraw. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough this morning that transitioning to Afghan control based on conditions on the ground is important to focus on. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly told a Senate panel this morning, “I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving.”
As Sen. McConnell also said today, “Once we achieve our objectives — an Afghanistan that can defend itself, govern itself, control its borders, and remain an ally in the war on terror — then we can reasonably discuss withdrawal, a withdrawal based on conditions, not arbitrary timelines.” Hopefully, the administration will stick with that plan and not let political considerations get in the way.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, troop surge, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Months after General Stanley McChrystal first made his request for more troops in Afghanistan, President Obama finally laid out his strategy in a speech at West Point last night. The president will order 30,000 more troops to the country to “target the insurgency and secure key population centers” and “train competent Afghan security forces.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said, “I support the President’s decision to follow the advice of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal in ordering the same kind of surge in Afghanistan that helped turn the tide in Iraq.” And the Los Angeles Times writes today, “In some ways, Obama’s new tack borrows directly from the ‘surge’ that his predecessor, George W. Bush, launched in Iraq in 2007 . . . .”
Yet the White House seems to have avoided making this comparison. Obama is facing serious problems with the left wing of the Democrat party, as The New York Times noted: “[S]everal senior Democrats took sharp exception to the president’s plan, illustrating the deep divide in the party over the conflict.” The Times described the reaction from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “noncommittal” and pointed out that “the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a close ally of the president, said he was not yet ready to render judgment.” And, the NYT writes, “Other Democrats quickly weighed in against the troop increase, making it clear they were prepared to break with the president.”
It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t want to remind those in his party who dislike his decision to follow the advice of his generals that he is continuing many of former President George W. Bush’s policies in the Middle East. Perhaps that’s why he spent so much time attacking Bush policies in his speech last night.
It may also explain why Obama and his aides spent a lot of time emphasizing timelines and when the surge forces could begin to withdraw. As the L.A. Times notes, “where Bush’s escalation came wrapped in promises that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq until victory was achieved, no matter what the cost, Obama’s troop buildup is all about exit strategies . . . .” But last night Obama said, “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.” And The Wall Street Journal reports, “A year from now, the administration plans to assess progress in the war and decide how quickly to withdraw the 30,000 troops in the surge.”
Conditions on the ground are the right criteria to judge how quickly American forces can withdraw. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough this morning that transitioning to Afghan control based on conditions on the ground is important to focus on. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly told a Senate panel this morning, “I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving.”
As Sen. McConnell also said today, “Once we achieve our objectives — an Afghanistan that can defend itself, govern itself, control its borders, and remain an ally in the war on terror — then we can reasonably discuss withdrawal, a withdrawal based on conditions, not arbitrary timelines.” Hopefully, the administration will stick with that plan and not let political considerations get in the way.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, troop surge, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 11:55 AM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home