Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Demand an Afghanistan Exit Strategy
Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern, Republican Congressman Walter Jones, and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold have introduced legislation demanding an exit strategy and timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. The bill reads, "Military operations in Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers more than $200,000,000,000 in deficit spending since 2001." Over 1000 American soldiers have been killed and more than 5,600 wounded. In 2009 alone, 2400 Afghan civilians were killed according to the UN, and tens of thousands have lost their lives since the war began.
The Senate and House bills--S. 3197 and HR 5015 , respectively--would require President Obama to provide a plan and a timetable for withdrawal of all US forces and military contractors, and identify any contingencies that might require changes to that timetable. It would demand an exit strategy--long overdue--from a war that has already cost us too much in treasure and lives, and isn't in the interest of US national security.
"Basically, what the bill is is a rejection of an open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan," said Rep. McGovern, on a conference call with NGOs, activists, and media organized by Peace Action last week. "This bill is a signal to the President that we want him to come up with an exit strategy, and we want the details."
Last year, McGovern introduced a similar amendment to an Afghanistan war-funding bill that also called for an exit strategy. It garnered more than 100 cosponsors and received 138 votes. He hopes the current legislation will be attached to an upcoming Afghanistan supplemental--within as soon as two weeks--and that it will hopefully receive even greater support. The House bill already has 36 cosponsors, including Republican Congressmen Jones, John Duncan of Tennessee, and Tim Johnson of Illinois; also Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, and Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner.
"This is an incredibly important time," said McGovern. "The more cosponsors we can get in the next couple of weeks--the more we're going to be able to exert some pressure when the supplemental comes up, [and] the more we're going to send a signal to the Administration that they need to pay attention to those of us who are saying that we need to rethink Afghanistan. What we want to make clear is that the concern about our involvement in Afghanistan is increasing, that it is deep, that a lot of people and members of Congress from all the over country--have a concern about this. So, it's important that all of us work to try to get members of Congress as cosponsors."
While McGovern notes that Obama has said he will begin redeploying troops in July of next year--a statement which immediately received some pushback from Defense Secretary Gates--that's insufficient.
"It's not only important to know when the first soldier is to be redeployed or brought home," he said, "it's important to know when the last soldier is as well."
McGovern--who served as a staffer to Congressman Joe Moakley for 14 years prior to his election to Congress in 1997--said that phone calls, emails, and letters are all important to members.
"I have to tell you as a former staffer and as a member of Congress-- pressure works, grassroots pressure works. It really makes a difference here," he said. "And when many people do it it's a movement. And what we need to create here in a very short period of time is a movement to try to change course on Afghanistan."
He suggested that people ask their representatives for a written response to "force them to think about what you discuss with them and see whether you can influence their position."
For McGovern, the reasons we need to withdraw from Afghanistan are clear. And it begins with the mission itself.
"This mission--whatever it is--is not clear," he said. "And I don't think by any measure it is something that we should be investing so much in terms of human life and American taxpayer dollars."
He noted that the war began as a response to those responsible for 9-11, but those perpetrators are no longer there. Al Qaeda, too, is establishing itself in other parts of the world like Yemen, not in Afghanistan . In fact, focusing so many resources on Afghanistan hinders our ability to fight Al Qaeda.
"Now we're engaged in this prolonged nation-building--get rid of the Taliban mission--that is not clearly defined, and quite frankly, is not working," he said. "If you go to war, you should have a clearly defined mission--a beginning, middle, transition period, and an end. I don't know what that is here. I can't tell you what success in Afghanistan means. I don't think the Administration can either."
McGovern says one of the biggest obstacles advocates for this bill face is the "fear" legislators have that they will be vulnerable to the charge that they are "soft" on terrorism. But he argues that this war isn't making the country safer.
"I believe it's having the opposite effect," he said. "We're draining our Treasury. We're putting our young men and women in uniform's lives at risk defending a corrupt leader. With each civilian casualty, more and more resentment grows towards the American forces and the Allied Forces that are there."
The Congressman spoke of his August visit to Afghanistan and the "widespread outrage" among US government representatives on the ground who were "horrified over the way Karzai conducted the election."
"But that outrage did not translate to our policy makers here in Washington," he said. "Basically we've given Karzai a pass. Supporting corrupt, incompetent governments--that's not the way US policy should proceed. I've seen this movie before--and you have too--it doesn't have a happy ending."
But McGovern is also quick to point out that he isn't advocating that the US abandon Afghanistan, "nor should anybody." He said some of most successful development in Afghanistan has occurred without a significant military footprint.
"Maybe we should learn from that," he said. "The cost of one American soldier for one year in Afghanistan is equal to the cost of building thirty schools in Afghanistan. If you want to win the hearts and minds I think thirty schools is a pretty big deal. Helping the people of Afghanistan--in a way that makes a real difference to them--is a fraction of the cost of what we're doing right now."
And that cost of continuing this war isn't lost on McGovern or other advocates of this legislation. (In fact, if this legislation shortens the war in Afghanistan by a year, that would pay the two-year cost of the Local Jobs for America Act .
"The hundreds of billions of dollars we spend over there on war.... All that--mostly borrowed money--means that we're not investing at home. It means our roads and our bridges aren't being fixed. It means our schools aren't being fixed. It means we're not investing in healthcare, and a whole range of other things that we need to do to get our economy back on track," he said. "When we talk about national security, that definition needs to be enhanced to include jobs, and the quality of education that we offer our people, and healthcare, and infrastructure, and roads and bridges, and the purity of our environment. All those things are a part of our national security."
McGovern also draws from history to inform his thinking--something too rare among our representatives. Referring to Time of Illusion, by The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent Jonathan Schell, he said: "[Schell] talked about this doctrine of credibility where policymakers in the 1960s all agreed that this Vietnam War was a loser, that our policy was wrong, but they were all worried about saving face. So they continued the war for several years before they ended it, probably on the same terms they could have ended it in the 1960s. But it was all about saving face and all about credibility.... I don't want to here 10 years from now, having this conversation, and having all of us say 'We could have done this ten years ago.'"
History also serves as a guide when it comes to the challenge we face in trying to get Congress and this Administration to rethink Afghanistan and change course.
"Lyndon Johnson had a great line after he left the White House," said McGovern. "He said, 'It's easy to get into war. It's hard as hell to get out of war.' Even when you know that war is wrong, or we need to readjust our policy. This is not an easy thing for this Administration to do. The only way things are going to change is through grassroots pressure--people working their members of Congress, getting him or her on HR 5015 , and making the case that they take a leadership role in trying to change our policy."
McGovern called the task at hand "politically delicate", but that "at some point I think doing what's right has to prevail."
This is the time for all of us to do what's right. A vote could come up in the next two weeks. Contact your Representative and Senators--whether Democrat or Republican--and tell them now is the time for them to cosponsor this bill.
- Posted in


26 Comments so far
Show AllI still can't understand why Congress is requesting the President to end a war that has no Constitutional basis. Wasn't Congress empowered to declare war? The foolishness the Congress committed after 9/11 which gives the Executive branch full power to fight any war it wants is just that: plain foolishness with no legal basis. Congress can bring the troops home simply by not funding the war effort. Why don't they do it?
Why don't they do it?
Because their corporate handlers don't want the profit train to end.
Profit for who?! Certainly not for the Afgani! Certainly not for the American people! Obviously the will of the few overrides the will of the many.
yes, so the next question is: why are authors continually imploring us to beg Congress to do what they obviously could do, if they so desired?
DEMAND?! Please, Katrina, you are talking about a time long past when "We the People" weren't muted out of existence.
"Why don't they do it?"
Because they don't have to.
Besides, these are all Katrina's people, perhaps she should work it.
Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
Thankfully the amerikan economy will continue to fail. At some point enough people will be so angry that there will be massive protests, civil disobedience, refusal to pay blood money-aka-taxes, only then, when the fascist military/ corporate government doesn't have blood money to carry out its terrorism- war is terrorism with a big budget- will amerikan imperialism end !
After reading this trite and uninspired piece from Katrina vanden Heuvel, I'm reminded why I let my subcription to "The Nation" expire.
No wonder the left can't get anywhere; we have no leadership-no one who has the courage, charisma and energy to take the actions necessary to topple the ineffectual and sold-out Amerikkkan government.
McGovern, Jones and Feingold: While your hearts are obviously in the right place, you are all just dreamers (and you too as well, Katrina).
No political pressure ever forced Dubya to put a timetable on Iraq and it just isn't about to happen here either.
Someone made reference to Congress having the ability to stop the war by stopping the funding. How many times did we hear that when the Democrats had to ability to do so since 2006? However, they couldn't do so for fear of what effect it might have upon their presidential candidate in 2008.
So, we continued (and are still in Iraq, in case anyone failed to notice) and they got their man in office. Now he's walking on eggshells because he knows his actions will have a strong influence on members of his party up for election or re-election in 2010.
Then, the process begins all over again as party members shake in their boots over what decisions they make in Congress and how it will effect their presidential candidate in 2012.
Do you see a slight pattern here? Do you wonder why nothing gets done in Washington? Cause they're all a bunch of pussies.
It's totally beyond the realm of possibility but it would really be interesting if candidates running for an elective office WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DIVULGE A POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION...of course, that's an impossibility because they wouldn't have any funds to run with and we know that elections are bought rather than won.
Golly gee, leaving so soon? The Afghan tribes are just getting warmed up.
Armies that live in logistics glass houses shouldn't kill civilians indiscriminately.
What do you think--add that as a supplement to Sun Zu?
Let's leave aside the question of whether Van Den Huevel and McGovern, et al are hacks or naive. Even duplicitous self-servers (if that's what they are) have political self-interest.
A timetable would constitute a sort of political victory for 'anti-war" leglislators, not a substantive one. They can always break a timetable, claiming "new developments" forced them to stay, "blah, blah, blah".
What would it take to actually end the war faster?
A negotiated settlement. That is what we are going to get in the end anyway, one way or another. How do you do it?
1. Negotiate a ceasefire and return to base.
2. Premise any US return to base on the immediate cessation of Taliban attacks on civilians, i.e., assasinations of teachers and NGO workers, suicide bombs vs. non-military and NGO clients, attacks on non-military govt offices. Support for Al-Qaeda also has to stop (this is not ridiculous - the Taliban offered us Bin Laden in 2001 if we had met certain reasonable conditions). All that has to cease in exchange for a return to base. The US only leaves the base to leave the country or fight when fired upon.
3. Set up third party hosted and sponsored long term peace talks, in Jordan? Pakistan?
4. Keep all regional players in the loop, including Iran, Russia, Pakistan, etc.
5. Begin physical withdrawal of mercenary forces immediately.
6. Begin withdrawal of uniformed service members, combat, logistics and "trainers", after cease fire has successfully held for 6 months.
The ceasefire negotiations could begin tomorrow. Could this work? I don't see why not. Will the financial/MIC elites allow it. Seems unlikely. They'll get raging dimbulbs and warhawk jackanapes like Jane Harman, Howard Berman, etc, to publicly froth and privately threaten anyone who tries to make it happen.
That is the sort of thinking that I would like to see Obama do. But he wont, if he actually does not want to end the war. All the signs point the other way. Certainly ending the occupation would jeopardize America's oil pipeline projects across Afghanistan.
"Keep all regional players in the loop, including Iran, Russia, Pakistan, etc."
Mainland China is much closer to an "etc. etc. etc.", and in fact is the determining party.
jareilly,
It's really pretty simple: oil and gas pipeline built, the USA stays until every drop is shipped South; the USA goes broke, the military leaves quick.
That's it. They have to bleed too much money or be afraid they need the troops elsewhere.
US elections are merely the means by which the Finance Capitalists choose whom to buy off.
That does not mean that votes cannot be tactically useful in other contexts.
These McDemocratic™ Congressvolken are just showboating, we've all seen the effectivness of this as demonstrated by Nancy 'No More Blank Checks For Bush' Fancy Pants Pelosi© who gave the ShrubCoⓇ Administration everything it wanted.
I am tired of the Dog & Pony show of Democrappers™ acting like they are opposed to the occupations of Pipe-O-Stan and Iraq-O-Stan but continue to fund it fully.
"It's The Democrapic™ Dog & Pony Show, It's The Democrapic™ Dog & Pony Show -CHA CHA CHA!!!"
More bourgeois BS from Katrina.
During the Vietnam War, it was the people who change the minds and fortunes of the IndoChinese War. It was the writing, the protests, the riots which required a withdrawal from that never ending war. Money was not the problem.
Today, the politicians don't listen to the public, the citizen, the people; they listen to money.
And the lack of money is what will get the USA out of occupations around the world-this includes Afghanistan.
The USA will be bankrupt, suddenly, within two years, I believe.
FTA Bring 'em home.
"Demand an Exit Strategy"
What does Katrina think the American Public has been
doing for a least five years ??
Any action that congress does right now is window
dressing for the elections and isn't going to stop
one drone, bomb, or bullet. The same ones that have
been voting for funding now dressing themselves up.
I call it putting on their makup for their remake
The perfume of the day....stop the war
Tomorrow's dressing....financial legislation..
The next perfume...campaign finance remorm
None of it will get done....they want to smell good for the
elections ....that are meaningless anyway..
DO DA DAY IN THE US OF A
The Obama administration is desperate for that one big victory, after which, no matter how subsequent negotiations with the Taliban turned out, our government can claim that it won. Otherwise the shame of defeat and its unpredictable consequences, including impeachments, courtmartials, even imprisonment. Far-fetched? Not so, because there's a recent precedent for this; namely, what happened in Argentina after its defeat by Great Britain in the 1982 Falkland Islands War. Argentina. bsck then was ruled by a fascist military dictatorship, but after suffering a crushing defeat by Great Britain, that dictatorship not only was toppled, several of its leaders were put on trial, convicted and ended up in the hoosegaw. As a matter of fact a week ago Argentina's last dictator, Reynaldo Bignone was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for torture and illegal detentions committed during that nations 1976-83 military dictatorship. A fate that the Obama administration and the Pentagon top brass aim to avoid, whatever the cost. And the cost last week was the lives of five American soldiers and who knows how many Afghanis, not to mention the billions of dollar that otherwise could have been spent on something useful.
The point of carrying on in Afghanistan is that everyone from Bush to Obama and all those generals and policy makers in between are guilty of "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against Humanity"........Instead of an exit strategy why not an "Independent Investigation of 9/11" since that was "The excuse for invading Afghanistan"....
I gather that people heard the interview on FOX News with Jeffrey Scott Shapiro. I gather he claimed that Mr Silverstein had asked permission to demolish World Trade Center #7 from his insurance company......Whhhhooops,there it is again a "Planned Demolition to go along with the attacks of 9/11.....How Convenient!
The Taliban were put into power by the United States and when they reneged on the "OIL PIPELINE CONTRACT" and gave it to Bridas Oil of Afghanistan instead of UNOCAL, the Taliban were then targetted for elimination....
Just get those troops out of there and cancel all civilian contracts to mercenary groups.
Katrina is like the story of the little boy who cried wolf. A lip service liberal who resides in the apologetic wing of the Democrat Party. She helped advance Obama and his ilk to power and now left writing impotent position pieces on why it all went wrong. If she spent half the energy working to build third parties this shit would not be an issue. She is like a little Beagle left to chase her tail perpetually always over thinking the gross stupidity of her choice.
Obama has suspended habeus corpus, truncated our collective rights under FISA, help perpetuate a corporate giveaway under TARP, war escalation, covert drone strikes on non combatants in violation of the war powers act, appointed Cheney's assassination general McChrystal to increase the body count of innocents in Afghanistan, a fantasy called clean coal, nuclear, oil drilling on the eastern seaboard even as a off shore rig is destroying a pristine eco system in the Gulf, Blackwater contracts expanded, approval of 24 of 26 mountain top removal permits authorized, appointments of Geithner, Summers, et al, the same people who destroyed financial oversight in the first place now in charge of the chicken coop, a supreme court short list that Greenwald has demonstrated are right of center extremists who advocate for drone strikes, and the Unitary Executive Theory; a corporate model For Profit Health Care Bill, environmental regulation that extends the problems like trade and cap rather than a carbon tax, nuclear will be paid for by the public but run for profit and the spent nuclear waste issue has never been solved. Nuclear waste contaminates ground water and the radio active waste out lives the containers they are stored in; expanded coal fires plants, coal being the most egregious energy source on the planet; CST technology is noting more than a pipe dream and if ever implemented would make coal the most expensive energy source on the planet, bio fuels will also usurp airable land thus increasing the price of food and oil sources reach their peak.
Yes, Katrina is an inside the belt way elite working to insure her life of comfort and power is insured while marching to her corporate handlers in the OBama Admin.
We really don't need to demand anything from Obama to end this war. It would not continue a week if we decided to end it. Just the way segregation was ended.
http://tinyurl.com/27tfh9h