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.

Making American protection compatible with Iraqi sovereignty

At the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the possible extension of the UN Mandate for Iraq, Chairman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) talked about reviewing the role that the Iraqi Parliament expected to play in the approval of the extension of the UN Mandate to December 31, 2008. Delahunt explained that members to Prime Minister al-Maliki and the UN Security Council called for the inclusion of a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, otherwise they would not support the extension of the UN Mandate.

Delehunt also explained that despite the recent dramatic change in public statements by both Iraqi and U.S. executive branches concerning a timetable for withdrawal of American troops by 2010, it is still “very much in question” whether an agreement can be reached by December 31, 2008. He said that members in the Iraqi Parliament also have expressed that they feel they have not been adequately informed as to the substance of the agreement and its implications for Iraq sovereignty. Delahunt said that from the beginning, it has been his position that a short-term extension of the UN Mandate is the best course of action, saying that “these issues are too important to be dealt with through a hasty, secretive approach.” He stressed that everyone should accept the need for a reasonable and responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops and recognize and respect the aspirations of the Iraqi people for sovereignty, and insist on legal protection for American troops.

Former Prime Minister of Iraq, Ayad Allawi, explained that Iraq is in the process of negotiating a security agreement with the U.S. to organize the security relations between the two countries and agree on the framework for final withdrawal. This agreement, Allawi said, should include diplomatic, economic, cultural, educational, and security aspects, and needs to be transparent and attain the approval of the Iraqi Parliament and people. Allawi explained that the security agreement has reached a deadlock and other options need to be explored. Extension of the UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7, Allawi said, is an option, but it may be unacceptable in Iraq, while a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 6 needs to be further studied.

Allawi said that it is also very important to discuss a time frame for reduction of U.S. forces. He said a reduction must be linked to measures of progress in Iraq and the conditions prevailing in the country. Iraq needs an army, police and security forces with commitment to defending the country’s sovereignty and unity, Allawi said, and needs America’s help in building them.

Dr. Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, said that Iraqi people are showing signs of impatience with the pace of U.S. withdrawal. He explained that 144 of the 275 members of Parliament signed a letter calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, mostly due to the attitudes of the Iraqi people. Kull said that if the U.S. government wants to play a constructive role in the future of Iraq it must understand the dynamics of public opinion and the forces of the political universe within which Iraqi leaders are operating. He also explained that the U.S. has effectively occupied Iraq, but has not effectively liberated it. Kull said that the U.S. needs to address the feeling held by most Iraqis that they are not being treated as a sovereign power.

Military operations in Iraq "led to the destruction of the country"

The Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight held a hearing on "The Future of U.S.-Iraqi Relations: The Perspective of the Iraqi Parliament." Chairman William Delahunt (D-Mass.) said that the most important relationship Congress can build is one with the Iraqi Parliament.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said that he believes everyone has the right to self-determination, and that the U.S. is suffering the consequences of "bad decisions" that could have been prevented, such as loss of life and financial chaos. He said the "sooner we get out of the way" and turn responsibility over to the Iraqi people, "the better," and asserts "Iraq is capable to defend itself."

The Honorable Nadeem Al-Jaberi from the Council of Representatives of Iraq said the Iraqi government still does not have full reign of the sovereignty because of the thousands of foreign troops in the country. He believes any bilateral agreement with the United States would be better if made after the withdrawal of American troops. He said a stable and strong Iraq is in the interest of the U.S. and the region, and that negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq will not be successful if both parties are not equal. He believes Iraq has the capabilities to defend itself and to build up military forces, and that U.S. troops are no longer needed in the way they had been before.

The Honorable Sheikh Al-Ulayyan from the Council of Representatives of Iraq said he salutes the American people for standing against the war with demonstrations and protests. He said the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq needs to be organized in a way to guarantee the integrity of Iraq and to keep order everywhere in the world. He said he would like to see the U.S. invest in all aspects of reconstruction. He said he would have preferred if the U.S. had not conducted military operations to rid Iraq Saddam Hussein because it "led to the destruction of the country."

"We're on the same page"

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen gave a press conference at the Pentagon today summing up their testimony on Capitol Hill in addition to the marathon testimony by Multinational Forces Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

Gates said that before this period of reporting back to the Congress and the Bush administration he had hoped that he, Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs, and the former head of Central Command Adm. Fallon would have a chance to speak their mind on Iraq and Afghanistan as decisions are made about the way forward. Gates said that it just so happened that all involved ended up on the same page as far as relying on information from Gen. Petraeus about conditions on the ground and making decisions based on his reports. Gates reiterated what he has said on Capitol Hill, that it is important not to "get the end game wrong in Iraq"



Mullen said that he feels that this evaluation of forces in Iraq is important, particularly because it will inform troop decisions made about Afghanistan. The 3,500 additional Marines the Defense Department announced it would send in January have been deployed and are en-route to their work in Afghanistan. Gates made sure to say that President Bush had been careful at the NATO summit in Bucharest to say that the U.S. would send more troops to Afghanistan, but not to say exactly how many or when.

When asked whether Muqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States, Mullen responded that Sadr is an enigma, whose cease-fire agreement has certainly been a help to the decrease in violence in Iraq. Gates answered that anyone who is prepared to participate in the Iraqi political process in a peaceful and constructive way is no enemy of the United States.

A big topic was Iran. Gates said that he was not sure if the recent reports of Iranian activity indicated an actual uptick in Iranian involvement in Iraq or if in the recent fighting in Basra such activity has just become more apparent. Both men said that they have seen no indication that Iranian President Ahmadinejad had direct knowledge of influence over the Iranian groups that fund and support terrorism in Iraq. But Gates said that though he's seen no evidence he finds it hard to believe that Ahmadinejad doesn't have direct knowledge.

And finally Gates, speaking on Afghanistan, said that the war there seems to have very broad bipartisan support and that he is sure that no matter who the next president is, they will have success in Afghanistan as a goal.

Petraeus and Crocker face Congress for a second day

The House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs committees hosted Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Multinational Force Iraq commander and ambassador in Iraq respectively.

The testimony and questions did not differ significantly from their testimony the two men gave in the Senate. In fact, both Petraeus and Crocker read their opening statements verbatim at all four hearings where they were called to testify. There was less protest of the testimony in the House committees than had been in the Senate, only one protester was escorted out of the Armed Service hearing. And there were no visible protesters at the Foreign Relations committee.

In the Armed Services Committee, responding to questions from Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Crocker spoke of an ongoing review process for looking at the 18 agreed-upon legislative benchmarks and agreed to inform the committee of the results of the review when completed next week. So far only three of the benchmark legislation has been approved by the Iraqi parliament and only one of those has been implemented. Crocker also emphasized that Iraq is a sovereign nation and that Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is able to make his own decisions, as made clear by recent action in Basra, and that if Maliki were to exclude Muqutada al Sadr from the political progress that is his prerogative.



Also in the Armed Services Committee, Rep.Randy Forbes (R-VA) questions the worth of the war to the average housewife who worries about groceries and the high cost of gas. Petraeus responded that "what happens in Iraq has ripple effects that will ripple into the United States." He noted that if there is an interruption to oil flows, there will bean even higher price at the gas tank. He said that the war is worth it because it inhibits al-Qaida's ability to establish a base in Iraq and conducts further attacks on the United States.

In the Foreign Relation Dan Burton(R-IN)asked whether a "precipitous pull out" from Iraq were to happen a vacuum were to be created only al-Qaida could fill it. Crocker answered that given conditions at this time, if the U.S. were to withdraw all soldiers in six months, there would be a downward spiral and al-Qaida would benefit, possibly establishing a base in the Middle East.

In the only heated exchange, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked about the strategic forces agreement and whether it would tie the hands of the next president if that president were to advocate a radical policy change and attempt to withdraw troops immediately. He allowed Crocker one word and that was, "No." Questioning Petraeus Sherman asked whether he would prepare upon the election of a new president to fulfill their policy. Petraeus said that he can only serve one boss and one policy at a time, but that the military would have a plan for a more expedient withdrawal. Petraeus said that he was uncomfortable with the line of questioning, reasserting his belief in civilian control of the military.