A Withdrawal Plan for Afghanistan

Two key antiwar critics, Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jim
McGovern, are expected to introduce legislation as early as next week
calling for a "flexible timetable" for the withdrawal of American troops
from Afghanistan. The proposal, now in final stages of preparation, was
confirmed by McGovern and by Feingold's office.

The coordinated effort, the first of its kind during the Afghanistan
war, is reminiscent of similar House-Senate proposals that eventually
succeeded in winning majority support during the Vietnam War. During the
Iraq War, resolutions calling for a timetable steadily advanced as well,
until they became Obama's platform in 2008.

The new initiative will challenge the Obama administration and offer
an organizing vehicle for the peace movement. The recent sixty-five
votes
for Representative Dennis Kucinich's antiwar resolution is not a true
measure
of antiwar sentiment in the Congress, McGovern told me, adding,
"We haven't had our full debate on the war." Congressional restlessness
is climbing over sacrificing American lives and dollars for a corrupt
and recalcitrant Karzai government, he argues.

A Congressional letter from Feingold and McGovern questioning the
current policy is expected shortly, to be followed by introduction of
the legislation. McGovern also will introduce an updated version of last
year's resolution requesting an exit plan from the administration. Last
year's version had 100 House sponsors.

Congressional attention will soon turn to the Pentagon's requests for
$33 billion to fund the current Afghan escalation and $159 billion for
Iraq-Afghanistan war funding in fiscal year 2011. Obama has spoken
against open-ended funding and pledged to "begin" troop withdrawals from
Afghanistan by summer 2011. Yet he has refused to agree to a date by
which all troops will be withdrawn as he did during the Iraq war in
2008.

The Feingold-McGovern proposal could challenge the president if it
achieves debate and a substantial, though minority, vote in favor. But
it also will reveal a lack of Democratic unity in both houses. According
to one ranking insider, "the mood...seems to be granting the
administration some additional time as the new troops deploy. It may not
be the right strategy but it suits most people politically."

A troop withdrawal deadline is seen by peace advocates as an incentive
to draw the Taliban into peace talks, directly and indirectly. There are
behind-the-scenes debates already underway over providing safe-passage
documents which would enable Taliban leaders to enter Kabul or a third
country for political negotiations, which Karzai favors. Former United
Nations envoy Kai Eide supports negotiating with the Taliban too, but
the US State Department and Pentagon are so far opposed both to
negotiations and safe-passage documents.

Meanwhile, some Congressional staff and peace advocates are evaluating a
menu of demands to make as possible amendments fleshing out an exit
strategy in the
budget battles ahead, among them:

SS ending the Iraq War according to agreements already supported by
the Obama administration. Currently, existing Congressional budget
language supports the timelines of (1) a US-imposed deadline of this
August 3 for all US combat forces to be withdrawn, and (2) the US-
Iraq pact's official December 31, 2011, deadline, when all remaining
troops and contractors must leave Iraq, and bases shut down or
handed over to the Iraqi government;

SS requiring all-party talks in Afghanistan leading to new
internationally supervised elections, including elements of the Taliban,
as a condition of funding;

SS conditioning further humanitarian and educational aid on
protections for Afghan women's rights, and recognized human rights
standards for detainees;

SS replacing ISAF troops in Afghanistan with peacekeepers from non-
aligned countries, particularly from Islamic-majority ones;

SS challenging drone attacks as pre-emptive invasions of
Pakistan's sovereignty to perform of secret extra-judicial killings,
which result in large-scale civilian deaths and alienate the population.

The strongest peace movement argument would seem to be about budgetary
impacts in a time of chronic recession. According to Joseph Stiglitz and
Linda Bilmes, Iraq alone will become a three-trillion-dollar war. The
Congressional Research Service says that the direct costs now reach
$1.08 trillion, including $748 billion for Iraq, $340 billion for
Afghanistan and $29 billion for "enhanced security."

As McGovern points out, "there is a price to be paid, in roads
falling apart, emergency rooms closing down, finite resources that
should be invested in putting people to work, but instead going to
two wars."

That will be weighed against Democratic concerns about opposing the
president during an election year.

But the measure floated by Representative Barbara Lee to cut funding for
the escalation may receive support from as few as fifty or sixty
members. Spending taxpayers' money without end on unfunded wars of
unknown duration doesn't sound like fiscal wisdom, but when it comes to
the Long War, both parties are loaded with big spenders.