SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Zach Lowe
Email: Zach_Lowe@feingold.senate.gov
Today, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold participated in a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee hearing entitled "Voice of Veterans of the Afghan War."
The hearing featured testimony of several veterans of the Afghanistan war, as well as Colonel
Andrew Bacevich (Ret), a West Point graduate currently on the faculty at Boston University.
During the hearing, Senator Feingold, who has raised concerns with the president's
proposed troop increase in Afghanistan
without an adequate strategy for Pakistan, had this
exchange with Bacevich:
Feingold:
Isn't necessary. Colonel
Bacevich what are the prospects for defeating the insurgency by increasing the
number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan given some concerns that many if not most
Afghans in the South oppose the presence of U.S. troops?Andrew Bacevich,
Colonel, U.S.
Army (Ret.): Several people have made the point that this is not a problem that
has a military solution. That to the degree that there is a solution, the
solution in Afghanistan is going to be found in what is going to be a massive
and protracted and tremendously costly exercise in nation building. I
think the likelihood of that exercise in producing success ten or fifteen years
downstream is not great but I think the larger point to be made, and I think
you made it in your remarks and I think Senator Lugar alluded to the same
thing, even if we could magically wave our wand and tomorrow have the
Afghanistan problem be solved - that the country would be stable, that
the government would be legitimate - what exactly would we have achieved
in a strategic sense? I think in a strategic sense the gains would be
very limited because as you suggested, and as this administration has
acknowledged in the creation in this term "Af-Pak," it is a mistake
to view Afghanistan in
isolation and in many respects the larger problem is in neighboring Pakistan.
To invest enormous resources in Afghanistan
I think is allowing technical considerations to take precedence over strategic
thinking.Feingold:
This is precisely what's been bothering me since I spent four or five
days in Pakistan in this region less than a year ago, and after the thoughtful
remarks of the chairman after his recent visit there, I want to follow on this
inter-relationship between Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
What about the possibility that an escalation in Afghanistan
can actually be more destabilizing to Pakistan. In other words, in
terms of militants spilling back over into that border. Is that a fair
concern or not?Bacevich:
I think it's a very real concern. You know, there's a very
interesting, I think, flawed new book out by David Kilcullen, the
counter-insurgency specialist, called "The Accidental Guerrilla."
There's a lot about that book that I disagree, but there's
one core truth I think that he give us. And that is the notion that most
of the people who fight against us, in places like Afghanistan, are fighting against
us because we're there. Now we may not believe that we are invading and
occupying countries, but the people on the other end view themselves as being
invaded and occupied. So to some degree, to some measurable degree, in
places like Afghanistan,
increasing the U.S.
presence actually increases the dimensions of the problem.Feingold: And
Colonel, Admiral Mullen has acknowledged that the Pakistani security services
maintains relations with militants in Pakistan. There are press
reports that this includes the provision of fuel and ammunition for Taliban
operation against U.S.
forces in Afghanistan.
If these allegations are correct, what is the likelihood that we can
stabilize the region or deny al Qaeda safe havens there so long as this sort of
activity continues?Bacevich:
Next to none.
Video of Senator Feingold's exchange with Bacevich
is available here.
Senator Feingold's full statement and exchange with the witnesses (both
video and transcript) are available below. The hearing came on a day when there
were reports
of the Taliban gaining control over more territory in Pakistan.
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote one analyst. "Now Trump may literally double down again."
The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending 10,000 additional US troops to the Middle East amid mounting fears of an invasion of Iran, which is mobilizing its forces ahead of a possible ground assault.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the new US troop deployment "would likely include infantry and armored vehicles" and "would be added to the roughly 5,000 Marines and the thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who have already been ordered to the region." The US Central Command has said roughly 50,000 American troops are currently stationed in the Middle East.
Lawmakers in the US have not authorized any attack on Iran, but legislative efforts to withdraw American forces from the war have thus far failed to pass either chamber of Congress. House Democratic leaders opted to punt a vote on a new Iran war powers resolution until mid-April despite apparently having enough support for passage, and the Senate isn't planning to hold its first public hearing on the war until after lawmakers return from spring recess.
"Sure am glad the US Congress thoroughly debated the merits of this war and the American public had a chance to weigh in regarding this expenditure of blood and treasure before the legislative branch ultimately decided it was worthwhile and voted to authorize it," Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote sardonically in response to reports of the new troop deployment plans.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, warned that the rapidly expanding troop deployments are "like a mathematically simplified escalation trap hypothetical come to life."
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote Williams. "Now Trump may literally double down again by deploying an additional 10,000 ground troops."
The Times of Israel reported Thursday that an unnamed official "from one of the countries mediating between the US and Iran" believes President Donald Trump "appears to be leaning toward ordering a US ground operation against Iran." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said publicly that a "ground component" is necessary in Iran, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly pushed Trump behind the scenes to launch a ground assault.
According to The Times of Israel, "the official intimately familiar with the mediation efforts says the US privately recognizes that Iran is not likely to agree to the concessions presented in Washington’s 15-point plan and has dispatched thousands of troops to the region in order to capture Tehran’s Kharg Island on Trump’s orders."
Kharg Island is Iran’s primary oil export hub. Among those urging Trump to seize the island is former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who wrote Thursday that "on the strategic chessboard of this war, Kharg Island is the next piece."
"Yes, there are risks," wrote Gallant, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. "Any operation to seize Kharg would require thousands of troops, sustained air and naval support, and detailed intelligence, and it would carry a real and expected cost in human life."
"President Trump has set up the US for this option. By signaling willingness to explore a diplomatic agreement with Iran, he has shown both the American people and the international community that he is prepared to compromise if Iran meets core demands," Gallant added. "In giving Iran days, not months, to meet these conditions, he buys time for US forces and their allies to prepare and finalize operational plans."
"The president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises... to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
US Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand on Wednesday unveiled a report detailing how President Donald Trump's attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are harming the very senior citizens whose strong support was so instrumental in his reelection.
The report—which was authored by the minority staff of the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging at the direction of Gillibrand (D-NY), its ranking member—states that Trump "was tasked with leading a nation that is rapidly aging and facing critical decisions about the policies and resources needed to support a sizable demographic change."
"The United States must decide how to ensure the independence of its seniors, how to support caregivers, and how to assist entire aging communities," the publication continues. "After one year in office, President Trump has failed at his obligations to America’s seniors. In fact, the president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises to them—such as his promises to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
Trump has FAILED at his obligations to America’s #seniors. The president has actively broken his promises to stop inflation, not to touch #SocialSecurity, and to "leave #Medicaid alone." READ the minority report of the Senate Committee on Aging HERE::: www.gillibrand.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
[image or embed]
— NCPSSM (@ncpssm.bsky.social) March 26, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Gillibrand said in a statement introducing the report that it "shows that instead of fighting for seniors, the president has attacked the very programs that help them stay afloat."
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last July, ushered in the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in US history.
Gillibrand's report "focuses on eight harms that represent the Trump administration’s failure to support seniors during his first year in office."
According to the publication, Trump:
Other Democratic members of Congress including Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Reps. Melanie Stansbury (NM) and John Larson (NJ) pointed out how Trump administration policies—including those mentioned in this piece and others like the billion-dollar-per-day war on Iran—are harming seniors by spending money that could have been allocated for their benefit or, in the case of Stansbury, by noting GOP attacks on mail-in voting, upon which many seniors rely.
"Seniors today are having a very hard time getting their benefits.Why?Social Security has pushed out 7,700 workers since Trump took office."
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 26, 2026 at 9:03 AM
"'America first' was bullshit," Duckworth said on Bluesky. "With the $200 billion Trump wants for Iran, we could fund a decade of free, universal preschool; provide seniors with Medicare dental, vision, and hearing coverage for three years; build 2 million+ affordable homes. He promised to end wars."
The US president faces pressure to fully retract his "deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians."
President Donald Trump on Thursday further delayed any potential US strikes on Iranian power plants to April 6, after nearly a week of critics calling him a "maniacal tyrant" for threatening to commit even more war crimes while attacking Iran with Israel.
"As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Trump initially said on the platform last Saturday night that "if Iran doesn't FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!"
Jan Vande Putte, a senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International, said in a Monday statement that "bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination, and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk."
"A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster," Vande Putte warned, pointing to the 2011 accident in Japan. "If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis."
Amid mounting outrage on Monday, Trump instructed the Pentagon to "postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions."
Critics continued to sound the alarm. In a Tuesday statement, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International's senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, called on Trump to retract his "dangerous" and "deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians."
"By threatening such strikes, the USA is effectively indicating its willingness to plunge an entire country into darkness, and to potentially deprive its people of their human rights to life, water, food, healthcare, and adequate standard of living, and to subject them to severe pain and suffering," she warned.
"The decision to not proceed with such attacks must be based on the USA’s obligations under international humanitarian law to avoid civilian harm—not the outcome of political negotiations," the campaigner argued. "Going through with such attacks would cause devastating long-term consequences and severely undermine the international legal framework designed to protect civilians in wartime."
Guevara-Rosas also called on Iran to retract its threats to retaliate by striking power plants used by the US and Israel in Gulf states, as well as end all unlawful attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and against energy infrastructure and desalination facilities in the region.
"Intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure such as power plants is generally prohibited," she stressed. "Even in the limited cases that they qualify as military targets, a party still cannot attack power plants if this may cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Given that such power plants are essential for meeting the basic needs and livelihoods of tens of millions of civilians, attacking them would be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law, and could amount to a war crime."
As for the Trump administration's negotiations with Iran, the president's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, confirmed Thursday that Pakistani mediators sent the United States' 15-point framework to the Iranian government—which has not fallen over nearly a month of war, despite frequent assassinations.
Citing an Iranian senior political-security official, state-run Press TV reported Wednesday that Iran had rejected Trump's 15-point plan and had a list of five conditions for ending the conflict: a halt to assassinations, concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed, reparations for damages, an end to the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region, and recognition of Iran sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
As The Associated Press reported Thursday:
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview on state TV that his government has not engaged in talks to end the war and does not plan to. He said the US had tried to send messages to Iran through other nations, "but that is not a conversation nor a negotiation."
Egypt is also acting as a go-between, according to Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, who said Thursday that his country sees a desire from both sides "for calm, for the exploration of negotiations."
Throughout the week, fears of Trump pursuing a ground invasion of Iran have also mounted, intenstifying pressure on congressional Democrats to force another vote on a war powers resolution intended to end the president's unauthorized Operation Epic Fury before the upcoming two-week recess.
"This may be the last opportunity for Congress to slam on the brakes before Trump launches a disastrous ground invasion of Iran," Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said on social media Thursday evening. "If Democratic leadership fails to force a vote and leaves town for two weeks, they will be complicit in any catastrophic escalation."