SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Winnable Fight: No More US Troops to Afghanistan
Sep 18, 2009
The stars are aligning for a winnable and worthwhile fight on U.S.
policy in Afghanistan in the next several weeks: stopping the Obama
Administration from sending more troops.
It should be winnable, because: the public is against sending more
troops, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are against sending more
troops, key Democrats in Congress have begun to speak out against
sending more troops, the Obama Administration is divided, President
Obama hasn't taken a public position, and the Obama Administration has
signaled that it will not take a public position for several weeks. The
delay gives opponents time to mobilize, more members of Congress the
opportunity to speak out before the Administration solidifies its
position.
It's a worthwhile fight, among other reasons, because if we want the
U.S. government to seriously pursue diplomatic efforts to resolve the
Afghanistan conflict politically, we have to jam them up on the
"military option."
On October 1, the U.S. plans to talk to Iran. This is happening, in
part, because Washington doesn't see a "military option" in Iran now.
Part of the reason Washington doesn't see a military option in Iran is
because they don't perceive the U.S. public as supporting a military
option.
Denying the Pentagon access to more U.S. troops isn't the most
subtle, nuanced way to influence U.S. policy. But it's the main lever
that the public has.
The political battle over more U.S. troops isn't a battle over
what's going to happen in Afghanistan next month. The troop increase
that President Obama approved earlier this year has not yet been
completed. It's a political battle about what's going to happen in the
next several years.
Indeed, if President Obama were to approve 10,000 more troops beyond
the increase already approved, the likely effect over time would be
simply to replace the troops from other countries that are almost
certain to leave.
Canada's Prime Minister has recently reaffirmed that Canada's 2,500 troops are leaving in 2011.
Italy's Prime Minister Berlusconi says Italy's 2,800 troops should leave Afghanistan "soon." A key coalition partner says they should leave in three months.
British Prime Minister Brown has told the US he wants to cut UK troop numbers from more than 9,000 to fewer than 5,000 in "three to five years, maximum," the Independent recently reported.
That's about 10,000 troops right there. Of course, these withdrawals are likely to spur others.
In 2011, the "foreign" military forces in Afghanistan will be
overwhelmingly U.S. forces, even more so than today. That's the world
that would be put in place by the U.S. troop increase that's being
proposed.
Now is the time for Congress and the American people to speak up. If
the Administration publicly commits itself to sending more troops, it
will be much harder for Democrats in Congress to oppose.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
The stars are aligning for a winnable and worthwhile fight on U.S.
policy in Afghanistan in the next several weeks: stopping the Obama
Administration from sending more troops.
It should be winnable, because: the public is against sending more
troops, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are against sending more
troops, key Democrats in Congress have begun to speak out against
sending more troops, the Obama Administration is divided, President
Obama hasn't taken a public position, and the Obama Administration has
signaled that it will not take a public position for several weeks. The
delay gives opponents time to mobilize, more members of Congress the
opportunity to speak out before the Administration solidifies its
position.
It's a worthwhile fight, among other reasons, because if we want the
U.S. government to seriously pursue diplomatic efforts to resolve the
Afghanistan conflict politically, we have to jam them up on the
"military option."
On October 1, the U.S. plans to talk to Iran. This is happening, in
part, because Washington doesn't see a "military option" in Iran now.
Part of the reason Washington doesn't see a military option in Iran is
because they don't perceive the U.S. public as supporting a military
option.
Denying the Pentagon access to more U.S. troops isn't the most
subtle, nuanced way to influence U.S. policy. But it's the main lever
that the public has.
The political battle over more U.S. troops isn't a battle over
what's going to happen in Afghanistan next month. The troop increase
that President Obama approved earlier this year has not yet been
completed. It's a political battle about what's going to happen in the
next several years.
Indeed, if President Obama were to approve 10,000 more troops beyond
the increase already approved, the likely effect over time would be
simply to replace the troops from other countries that are almost
certain to leave.
Canada's Prime Minister has recently reaffirmed that Canada's 2,500 troops are leaving in 2011.
Italy's Prime Minister Berlusconi says Italy's 2,800 troops should leave Afghanistan "soon." A key coalition partner says they should leave in three months.
British Prime Minister Brown has told the US he wants to cut UK troop numbers from more than 9,000 to fewer than 5,000 in "three to five years, maximum," the Independent recently reported.
That's about 10,000 troops right there. Of course, these withdrawals are likely to spur others.
In 2011, the "foreign" military forces in Afghanistan will be
overwhelmingly U.S. forces, even more so than today. That's the world
that would be put in place by the U.S. troop increase that's being
proposed.
Now is the time for Congress and the American people to speak up. If
the Administration publicly commits itself to sending more troops, it
will be much harder for Democrats in Congress to oppose.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
The stars are aligning for a winnable and worthwhile fight on U.S.
policy in Afghanistan in the next several weeks: stopping the Obama
Administration from sending more troops.
It should be winnable, because: the public is against sending more
troops, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are against sending more
troops, key Democrats in Congress have begun to speak out against
sending more troops, the Obama Administration is divided, President
Obama hasn't taken a public position, and the Obama Administration has
signaled that it will not take a public position for several weeks. The
delay gives opponents time to mobilize, more members of Congress the
opportunity to speak out before the Administration solidifies its
position.
It's a worthwhile fight, among other reasons, because if we want the
U.S. government to seriously pursue diplomatic efforts to resolve the
Afghanistan conflict politically, we have to jam them up on the
"military option."
On October 1, the U.S. plans to talk to Iran. This is happening, in
part, because Washington doesn't see a "military option" in Iran now.
Part of the reason Washington doesn't see a military option in Iran is
because they don't perceive the U.S. public as supporting a military
option.
Denying the Pentagon access to more U.S. troops isn't the most
subtle, nuanced way to influence U.S. policy. But it's the main lever
that the public has.
The political battle over more U.S. troops isn't a battle over
what's going to happen in Afghanistan next month. The troop increase
that President Obama approved earlier this year has not yet been
completed. It's a political battle about what's going to happen in the
next several years.
Indeed, if President Obama were to approve 10,000 more troops beyond
the increase already approved, the likely effect over time would be
simply to replace the troops from other countries that are almost
certain to leave.
Canada's Prime Minister has recently reaffirmed that Canada's 2,500 troops are leaving in 2011.
Italy's Prime Minister Berlusconi says Italy's 2,800 troops should leave Afghanistan "soon." A key coalition partner says they should leave in three months.
British Prime Minister Brown has told the US he wants to cut UK troop numbers from more than 9,000 to fewer than 5,000 in "three to five years, maximum," the Independent recently reported.
That's about 10,000 troops right there. Of course, these withdrawals are likely to spur others.
In 2011, the "foreign" military forces in Afghanistan will be
overwhelmingly U.S. forces, even more so than today. That's the world
that would be put in place by the U.S. troop increase that's being
proposed.
Now is the time for Congress and the American people to speak up. If
the Administration publicly commits itself to sending more troops, it
will be much harder for Democrats in Congress to oppose.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.