Bipartisan Bill Would Hasten Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan

Considering President Obama’s call to bring all troops from Iraq home for the holidays, a bipartisan group of senators is now calling for an expedited troop drawdown in Afghanistan as well.

Earlier in the year, Preside Obama announced that all troops currently deployed in Iraq would return home before the new year. The president also set a similar withdrawal plan for Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Now, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) are amending the Defense Authorization bill with a measure requiring Obama to expedite the transition in Afghanistan.

“It is time to have a clear missive from the President on how he plans to end our presence in Afghanistan,” Paul said. “We cannot continue endless nation-building efforts overseas while here at home we face expounding national debt, crumbling infrastructure and out-of-control spending in Washington.”

The effort to amend the major defense authorization bill will likely face an uphill battle considering the intensified debate over a controversial detainee provision.

The debate over the Defense Authorization bill has escalated within the Senate Armed Services Committee over language that would place future terror suspects into the custody of the United States military, something both the Pentagon and some Democrats have opposed. Despite the support the detainee provision has from Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the White House has since released a statement threatening to veto the bill as it stands.

The Administration’s threat to veto the bill puts a damper on the efforts put forth by this bipartisan group of senators. According to a statement released by the senators, American military presence in Afghanistan costs nearly $10 billion per month, an amount of money they argue is unacceptable at a time domestic economic turmoil.

“With the death of Osama Bin Laden, we have now accomplished [our] goals. It is time to end our presence in Afghanistan and refocus our attention on fighting terrorists wherever they may be,” said Merkley.  “At a time of high unemployment, a wave of foreclosures and growing debt, we need to  concentrate on nation-building here at home.”

The resolution put forth would call on Obama to expedite the transition of military responsibility to Afghanistan and would provide the Commander-in-Chief with 90 days to present a new timeframe and expected completion date for an accelerated troop withdrawal. Considering the hot water the Defense Authorization bill is simmering in with the White House’s veto threat, it’s unclear whether such a measure has much life.

Levin Backs Obama's Troop Reduction Date In Afghanistan

By Kyle LaFleur - Talk Radio News Service

US Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin expressed great support Friday morning to the Council on Foreign Relations for President Obama’s strategy to begin reducing US forces in Afghanistan and transfer in responsibilities to the Afghan government in July 2011.

“Once the President announced his decision, I focused my efforts on what I believe to be the decisive factor in success or failure in Afghanistan, building the Afghan army’s capability and getting Afghan troops to take the lead in operations,” said Levin, “That belief is based on my conviction that it will be up to the Afghan forces and people to succeed in this conflict if they want a better future than the grim prospect the Taliban offers.”

Levin bolstered his support for the timed turnover by pointing out that when Marines began operations in Helmand Province last spring, the ratio of Marines to Afghan soldiers was five to one. 

“The ratio is now one to one,” said Levin, “And we finally are seeing Afghan forces leading some operations in Arghandab and other districts around Kandahar.  Having Afghans lead these operations is the Taliban’s worst nightmare, because it gives the lie to the Taliban propaganda that portrays Western troops as hostile occupiers.”

Levin believes sticking to the July 2011 date would also send a message of pressure to the President Karzai and the Afghan government to earn the support of the people. The senator also said that only through proving itself as a legitimate and effective governing body, Afghanistan would not return to a state of “Taliban domination” and the negative public view of the government would jeopardize sustaining credibility of a currently respected Afghan army.

“If the Afghan people begin to perceive the army as protecting a corrupt and ineffective national government, that respect will wane,” he said. 

Back at home, people seem to agree with Levin.  A Gallup poll from June showed that 58% of Americans agreed with the President’s time table.  

Levin Wants Clamp Down On Speculative Actions Of Investment Banks

By Justine Rellosa
Talk Radio News Service

With top executives from investment bank Goldman Sachs set to testify Tuesday in front of a Senate Government and Homeland Security subcommittee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) today showcased approximately 500 pages of documents that illustrate how the scandal-riddled investment bank “repeatedly put its own interests and profits ahead of the interest of its clients.”

“For large fees, Goldman helped run the conveyor belt that dumped hundreds of billions of dollars of toxic mortgages into the financial system,” said Levin, who chairs the subcommittee that will host Tuesday's hearing.

The documents the Senator previewed included internal reports and emails that, according to Levin, show Goldman Sachs betting against the mortgage market throughout 2007, despite the fact that the company has denied such accusations.

“Its own documents show that it engaged in what one top executive described as 'the big short,'” said Levin. “Not hedging, but betting heavily against the market.”

"We cannot have this kind of a gambling house...making bets," Levin added. "We cannot allow this to continue."

The Senator announced that the committee will decide after the hearing on Tuesday whether they will refer this matter to the SEC and to the Justice Department for further consideration.

McCain Wary Of New Missile Defense Plan

by Julianne LaJeunesse- University of New Mexico

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) expressed concern Thursday that the recent decision by the Obama administration to scrap a long-range missile defense system in Eastern Europe could signal that the U.S. is willing to concede to Russian interests.

"There is very little doubt, that in most of the world, that this is viewed as an attempt to gain Russian concessions on the Iranian nuclear issue," McCain said during a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "That's the interpretation. It was Machiavelli that said 'It's not what you do, it's what you appear to do.'"

During the hearing, McCain questioned the Defense Department's motives for changing the 2007 long-range missile plan in Poland and the Czech Republic. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates originally created the Bush administration's plan, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said that she personally saw the deliberation Gates put into the Obama administration's new short-range missile plan.

At the hearing, McCain said some of the newspaper accounts he's read lead him to believe the international community doesn't buy the Department of Defense's arguments about the technological benefits of short-range missiles in Europe, noting that the time it will take to implement new technologies will be time the United States and European allies will be left with weakened military defenses.

McCain added that he's curious about how new U.S. missile policies will affect Polish and Czech policies.

"I think it's worth noting the Czech Republic currently have NATO forces deployed, as well as 100 personal deployed in Kandahar," he said. "The Polish currently have 2, 000 troops in Afghanistan. I would be very interested in the future to see how firmly the Poles and the Czechs stand behind those commitments."

McCain went on to argue that he agrees building and using defenses against short-range missiles are needed, but not because of the "belligerent threats the Iranian regime continues to pose to the United States and the rest of the world."

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he believed the new short-range missile approach is positive because it "addresses more directly and effectively Iran's missile threat, it maintains and expands our security commitment to Europe, including Poland and the Czech Republic, [and] it opens the door to working cooperatively with Russia on a missile defense system that could not only provide greater protection to Europe, but also make a strong statement to Iran, that Europe, including Russia will take unified action against Iran's threat."

Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) shared many of Sen. McCain's views, with Lieberman asking why the U.S. cannot adopt a dual system with short and long-range missiles.

Defense Spending Bill Includes Plan For Enemy Combatants

Defense Spending Bill Includes Plan For Enemy Combatants

The legislation that will streamline Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ vision of a sleeker military will also include provisions dictating how the U.S. will try enemy combatants.

“Military commissions...can play a legitimate role in prosecuting violations of the law of war, but only if they meet standards of fairness which have been established by the Supreme Court,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) during a press conference Thursday.

As it stands, the National Defense Authorization Bill For Fiscal Year 2010 does not address the fate of Guantanamo detainees, but their eventual destination is expected to be a major issue when the bill goes to the Senate floor in approximately two weeks.

While the bill cuts funding for a variety of out-of-date or wasteful programs, including the production of the VH-71 Presidential Helicopter and the transformational satellite program, funding for F22-Raptor jets remained untouched. On Wednesday President Barack Obama announced that he would veto the bill unless the F22 program was discontinued.