Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
McGovern, Obey Lead House Showdown on Afghanistan War
Tonight, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Pentagon's request for $33 billion for open-ended war and occupation in Afghanistan. While press reports suggest that when the dust settles, the Pentagon will have the war money, it's likely that a record number of Representatives will go on the record in opposition to open-ended war and occupation.
Representative Jim McGovern [D-MA] and Representative David Obey [D-WI] are expected to introduce an amendment on the war supplemental that would require President Obama to present Congress with a timetable for military redeployment from Afghanistan.
Ninety-eight Representatives have already signed their names to this policy, by co-sponsoring McGovern's bill, H.R. 5015.
In addition, the McGovern-Obey amendment would try to lock in the President's promise to begin a "significant withdrawal" of troops in July 2011 by requiring another vote on funding if the promise is not kept. The amendment also requires a new National Intelligence Estimate by January, which would hopefully have the effect of forcing the Administration's promised December review of the war policy to be real and its main conclusions public.
So far, the high-water mark for House opposition to the Administration's war policy in Afghanistan came in June 2009, when 138 Members voted for an amendment introduced by McGovern requiring the Pentagon to present Congress with an exit strategy. Among House Democrats, McGovern's June amendment had majority support by a margin of 131-114, a 53-47 split.
Representative McGovern will be working to bring more than 138 Members with him this time, on a provision that is significantly sharper than last June's amendment, because it requires a "timetable for withdrawal" rather than merely an "exit strategy," as well as trying to lock in the promised drawdown of summer 2011.
Getting the McGovern-Obey amendment past the entire House will be a very tall order if the overwhelming majority of House Republicans continue to vote for open-ended war. Only 7 Republicans voted with McGovern last June. If only 7 Republicans vote with McGovern now, and turnout is similar to June, some 200 Democrats - four-fifths of the Democratic caucus - would have to vote yes to carry the amendment.
But there is some grounds for optimism that McGovern could bring with him a significantly bigger proportion of the Democratic caucus than he did last June.
On May 27 of this year, eighteen Senators voted in favor of Senator Feingold's amendment requiring a timetable for withdrawal. Before May, no-one in the Senate had joined Feingold in publicly advocating for a withdrawal plan; last year, the Senate didn't even consider anything like Representative McGovern's exit strategy amendment. But in May, Feingold's amendment was backed by three of the four members of the Senate Democratic leadership: Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray. That was the Senate, traditionally more supportive of foreign military entanglements than the more populist House.
And that was before Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article and General McChrystal's dismissal called the question of the radical disconnect between the Washington fairy tale of how military escalation is going to lead to "success" and the "ground truth" reality of quagmire in Afghanistan.
The story that was told last fall when General McChrystal demanded 30,000 more troops has not come to pass. The offensive in Marja was a failure. The offensive in Kandahar, the centerpiece of the escalation - which people in Kandahar have overwhelmingly rejected - has been postponed. The Afghan Taliban have not been "defeated" or "degraded." The political settlement that the Afghan government is now seeking - with the ostensible support of the U.S. - will involve the same Taliban leaders that we are fighting today, and the eventual result of these negotiations is not likely to be significantly changed by more killing.
By sending a decisive signal that patience in Congress is wearing out, the House can dramatically shorten the war. Congress can save many American and Afghan lives and tens of billions of dollars if it moves decisively to turn this ship around. You can weigh in by calling your Representative today. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-225-3121.
- Posted in




10 Comments so far
Show AllThe bill hr 5015 states we need a comprhensive plan to combat global terrorism, how about Interpol,
INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 188 member countries. Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.
Sounds like we should have poured a few billion into this organization, wih money ,training , intelligence gathering , co-oporation instead of invasion, we could have saved trillions and blood, not to mention have a real network for fighting global criminal activity as well international terrorism, which is criminal activity.
We dont have good leadership in Washington, we have the best politicians that corporate money can buy.
And with the expansion of executive powers and the patriot act, the constitution and our civil libertys are in jepordy
Bring out troops home , we have some house cleaning to do!!!!
Whoa!!!
But the US gov't wants to milk terrorism, not fight it.
Exactly--this is not about terrorism-- that's just the shit the M$M feeds us but it's about lining the pockets of the MIC and going after natural resources in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq.
If anyone really believes these wars are about 9-11, they have not been paying attention.
911--inside job or not--is just the EXCUSE to invade, rape and pilage these countries.
War is an industry--make a killing on killing.
So if the amendment passes, they will still vote for the $33 billion?
It seems so. The amendment should simply state "Isn't 9 years of failure enough?"
Don't look now but http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/02
I will see if I can find the role call on who actually voted for it not that it matters much at this point.
I know I'm a broken record on this issue, but attach a funding bill to pay for this war. Preferably a gas tax. Pay to play!
On the eve of July 4, does anyone believe that the House will vote against supporting soldiers in the field?
Neo-McCarthyism has found it's niche not in shouting "Communist!", but in screaming "Unpatriotic!"
Id say the top brass are worried this Afghanistan war might fizzle out. Tats why they alreadt have a new one lined up:-
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=114347
During the Obama administration there was a failed attempt to destroy an airplane and a failed attempt to kill numerous bystanders with a car-explosion on Times Square in N.Y. City. It is crystal clear that not a single bullet fired by NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, nor a single rocket fired by a drone at some undefined target in Pakistan has contributed anything positive to these failures. If these facts do not prove the fallacy of the mantra that "we must fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to prevent more of these two failed terrorist attempts at home" it becomes clear that the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan have absolutely nothing to do with my safety against terrorist attacks here in Houston. Which I knew as a fact even before Mr. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Afghanistan. How much additional evidence do our representatives and senators need to throttle the money faucet for the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The only effective stopping of a possible terrorist attack in Houston begins at the borders of our country and in the planning stage also by the collection of intelligence abroad.