12/03/09

Yesterday, the Obama administration took its strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to Congress.  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen began the task of explaining the Administration’s strategy to America’s elected officials.  For the sake of the strategy’s integrity, and in order to make certain that the Administration remains focused on its core objectives, it is vital that Congress ask the tough questions, and maintain vigilant oversight.

Sadly, many conservatives on the Hill appeared content to heave unproductive potshots at Administration officials.  Speakers harshly attacked the idea of transitioning responsibility to Afghans.  They continued efforts to pit the commander-in-chief against the uniformed military – an effort that all sides have wisely sought to dispel.  And they recycled tired, discredited claims that the Administration is fighting with its hands tied by reading Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield.
 
While those queries distracted from the serious issues at hand, progressives and moderates led the way with sharp questions that examined almost every element of the President’s strategy.  The Administration must now respond to their concerns as it continues to make its case to the American people – and as it moves to implement its approach carefully, and without diversion from its main objectives.  Going forward, Congress should continue to fulfill its oversight responsibilities, holding the Administration accountable to ensure that the interests of Americans are served.  

Gates, Clinton and Mullen face congressional committees, underscoring the importance of oversight and accountability.  “Obama dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Capitol on Wednesday to testify before a pair of House and Senate committees Wednesday…Other key advisers, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, and Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, will appear before key committees early next week, with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the Afghan war commander, appearing after that,” reports the Washington Post.   A separate Washington Post article says that,  “Lawmakers from both parties searched for weaknesses Wednesday in President Obama's newly announced Afghan strategy, focusing on what many said was a contradiction between his promise to begin removing U.S. troops in 18 months and his caveat that departures will depend on ‘conditions on the ground.’ Few joined with Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) in categorically rejecting Obama's description of vital U.S. interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, his deployment of 30,000 additional troops and his plan for eventual withdrawal from both countries... But full-throated endorsements were rare, especially among Democrats, many of whom have questioned the troop escalation and what it will cost.” [Washington Post, 12/2/09.  Washington Post, 12/3/09]

Conservatives use hearings as a political soapbox, meet effective responses from Clinton, Gates and Mullen.  

“Embolden our enemies”: John McCain continued his criticism of the strategy’s timetables, saying “If you say there's a date certain for withdrawal, your friends and enemies who will be in the region make accommodations accordingly.”  Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) took the criticism furthest: “I disagree with the President’s decision to personally relay to our enemies when they can regroup and when they can retake Afghan territory. I simply cannot understand and cannot agree with this approach. For President Obama to indicate that he has already made a decision that will take effect in 18 months irrespective of what the situation is on the ground, not only emboldens our enemies but allows them to prepare and plan...”

Secretary Gates’ response: “I would say that, are the Taliban going to be more emboldened than they already are because of this announcement? I don’t think so. They are moving as aggressively now as we have ever seen them. And what are they going to do? Are they going to lie low for 18 months? That would be terrific news because that would give us open field running. Are they going to go back to Pakistan and wait for 18 months? Terrific, it gives us the opportunity without opposition to help the Afghans build. Are they going to lie low in Afghanistan? If they are not attacking Afghans, if they are not blowing things up, if they are not attacking our coalition troops, then again that gives us a huge opportunity. On the other hand, if they’re going to engage, if they’re going to be as bold and as aggressive as they’ve been over the past year, then they will encounter 150,000 foreign troops and a couple of hundred thousand Afghan troops who will root them out.”

Role of the commander-in-chief:  Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) pushed a now common conservative refrain - that Obama has simply deferred to his generals on the strategy - asking if the President’s plan was, “the specific counterinsurgency plan outlined by Gen. McChrystal in August.” Secretary Gates responded,  “I think that it’s fair to say that the assessment General McChrystal submitted in August was the basis of the entire dialogue that we’ve had for the last 3 ½ months. And what we have been working on is how do we… focus that, how do we narrow the mission so that we are focused on selective capacity building in the government, capacity building that’s essential to our success… and so on… But I would say that the starting point was his assessment.”  In an editorial this morning, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Obama did alter Gen. McChrystal's outline in four significant ways. At least one is praiseworthy: an acceleration of the troop reinforcements, which will arrive within six instead of 16 months...  Mr. Obama also decided to rely on NATO allies to provide 5,000 to 7,000 fresh troops... Third, Gen. McChrystal wanted to increase the Afghan army to 240,000 troops over the next few years. Mr. Obama set a more limited goal of 130,000 by late next year... Mr. Obama's last innovation is his most conspicuous: the July 2011 date for beginning a U.S. withdrawal.” [John McCain, via CNN, 12/02/09. HFAC hearing via C-Span, 12/02/09. Washington Post, 12/3/09.]

“Fighting with our hands tied”: Rep. McCaul (R-TX) said, “there have been reports that terrorists are captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan are taken to a facility and read their Miranda Rights.” The panel answered with the dismissal that the question deserved, Secretary Gates simply said, “I don’t think that’s true.” Secretary Clinton followed, saying, “I don’t have any reason to believe that” and Admiral Mullen replied, “Nor do I.”

Progressives use tough questions and remarks to push the Administration to focus its policy. In contrast to the hysterical, at times nonsensical, commentary from extreme conservatives in Congress, progressives, along with some moderate conservatives, took the time yesterday to ask the right questions:

Sen. Carl Levin (D – MI) on Afghan security forces
“Where I have questions is whether the rapid deployment of a large number of U.S. combat forces, without an adequate number of Afghan security forces for our troops to partner with, serves that mission,” [Sen. Carl Levin, 12/02/09]

Sen. Susan Collins (R – ME) on safe havens
“How will it make us safer to invest more troops and more treasure in Afghanistan as long as al-Qaida still has the ability to establish safe havens in other countries?” [Sen. Susan Collins, via the Foster’s Daily Democrat, 12/02/09]

Sen. Jim Webb (D – VA) on Afghan perceptions
“That's a lot of Americans going into a country that has historical resistance to foreign influence…The question is, are they going to be viewed more as occupiers than as a presence that assists the change of government?” [Sen. Jim Webb, via the Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/02/09]

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D – MO) on contractors
“In the face of an upcoming troop buildup in Afghanistan, McCaskill expressed concern to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the growing number of contractors supporting U.S. forces there. There are currently 75,000 contractors in Afghanistan, supporting 71,000 U.S. troops.” [Sen. Claire McCaskill, via National Defense Magazine, 12/02/09]

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D – NY) on Pakistan
“I think the best I come up with is that we have a shack that's on fire, but it's located next to the dynamite factory," he said. "Is it worth risking the lives of those who respond to the fire in a place that may or may not hold a lot of value in and of itself?” [Rep. Gary Ackerman, via CNN, 12/02/09]

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D – MA) on timetable for progress
“We've been there eight years now and we're still talking about turning it around…Is (another) 18 months going to be sufficient?” [Rep. Bill Delahunt, via CNN, 12/02/09]

Rep. Donald Payne (D – NJ) on the Bush legacy
“Rep. Donald Payne, D-New Jersey, blamed a recent Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan on neglect by the Bush administration since the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003. As a result, he argued, Obama was left with no good choices in Afghanistan. ‘I don't like the increase in troops. I don't think we can win a war in Afghanistan,’ he said. ‘We have to quickly transition into having the Afghans take care of themselves.’” [Rep. Donald Payne, via CNN, 12/02/09]

What We’re Reading

International customs inspectors are increasingly finding smuggled weapons coming in and out of Iran, from rogue nations to Iranian proxies across the Middle East.  Federal prosecutors have released court documents related to a convicted Iranian arms broker who has been released. In Iran, the crackdown against the political opposition continues.
 
The controversial founder of the military contractor Blackwater said that his business gave aid to a CIA program targeting Al Qaeda figures.

The Honduran Congress voted against reinstating deposed former President Manuel Zelaya.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez continues to threaten nationalization of his country’s banking system, following the state takeover of a former political ally’s bank.

American and Russian negotiations continue in order to finish an arms control treaty which would reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads, missiles, bombers and submarines to their lowest levels in a half century.

Israeli police officers began arresting settlers who are defying the Israeli government’s temporary freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank.

A suicide bombing in Somalia killed as many as15 people, including three Cabinet ministers.

Twenty-two members of the Uighur Chinese ethnic group who participated in violent demonstrations last summer sought asylum in Cambodia, fearing a return to China.

Commentary of the Day

The Los Angeles Times urges a new review of US policy towards Cuba, acknowledging the failure of sanctions to break the cycle of continuing crackdowns on political freedoms in that country.

Tariq Ramadan explains that the vote to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland has as much to do with confusion over European identity as it does with Islamophobia.

Suketu Mehta marks the 20th anniversary of the leak of poisonous gas from a plant in Bhopal, India by asking Dow Chemical to take responsibility for the incident.