THE HILL
 

War debate intensifies

By The Hill Editors - 10/20/09 06:25 PM ET

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has a cordial relationship with Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), but that didn’t stop the No. 2 leader in the lower chamber calling out the minority leader by name at a press conference on Tuesday.

Hoyer was irritated at Boehner’s recent criticism of the Obama administration on its handling of the war in Afghanistan. Boehner suggested that unless more U.S. troops are sent in, and sent in quickly, “our efforts to deny al Qaeda and the Taliban a safe haven in Afghanistan may end in failure.”

Hoyer fired back on Tuesday: “My Republican colleagues, of course, abandoned their focus on Afghanistan for seven years — seven years — and let it drift, and did not resource it properly, and did not succeed.”

The statements from both sides of the aisle are growing sharper as President Barack Obama formulates his next step.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal has recommended a surge of 40,000 troops. Republicans on Capitol Hill say there should be no delay, asserting that Obama should send the troops as quickly as possible.

Whatever the president decides, Congress, which is controlled by Democrats, will be confronted with a war supplemental request.

House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said this month, “There’s gong to be a supplemental whether there’s more troops or not, because they’re going to run out of money in the spring.”

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has warned the administration that its time waging war in Afghanistan is running out.

He recently said, “The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightning rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail.”

While White House officials point the finger at Republicans for not focusing more on Afghanistan during the previous administration, they also know that they may need GOP votes to pass a supplemental bill.

Earlier this year when a war-funding bill attracted GOP critics because of allocations for the International Monetary Fund, House Democrats struggled, but ultimately succeeded, in securing enough votes for the measure to pass.

But since then, more Democrats have clamored for a withdrawal from the war-torn country.

If Obama doesn’t endorse McChrystal’s recommendation, and seeks, for example, 20,000 troops, he would be criticized by the right and the left.

Obama has repeatedly stressed the need to listen to all of his political advisers and his generals on the ground. He wants to succeed in Afghanistan with the right strategy, but he will need the votes in Congress to carry it out.

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/editorials/63969-war-debate-intensifies

Comments (1)

Both Boehner and Hoyer are correct but because of the polarization and lack of bi-partisanship - they will never be able to sit together on the subject.The war on Afghanistan is at present going to lose unless a number of critical factors are addressed. Going back to classical conflict theory makes it quite clear.1. There needs t obe a capacity to fight and win the conflict. Troop numbers and quality, the right technology, correct intel, logistics etc. We are told by our professionals that it is not presently sufficient so lets fix it.2. Support and/or control of the theater of conflict - that means the hearts and minds of the Afghani people and the complicity of its government. I doubt that we actually have that, it is after all the Taliban's domain and they have the experience and the methods to disseminate their propoganda. The ultra-conservative tribal-Islamic mix that is Talibanism is still obviously very strong and there is doubt that all in the Government are in fact on our side of the conflict. We have a long way to go.The third factor is support at home - and that is also drying up fast. The lack of bi-partisan support on the issue (because political point scoring is more fun) is simply detrimental for the objective and shameful. If we wish to succeed in this conflict we need to be behind it.All three of these principles need to be addressed to have a chance of victory in Afghanistan, if not our brave men and women will have simply died for nothing.BY The White Rogue on 10/30/2009 at 11:49

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.