Senator Feingold Wants Strategy in Place Before Afghanistan Deployments

[bigtree]

from Raw Story: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Top_Senate_Democrat_questions_Obama_Afghanistan_0218.html


In a subtle rebuke to President Barack Obama's decision yesterday to deploy 17,000 more US troops to the war-torn country, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) questioned whether an increased US presence was a good idea:

"After years of a failed foreign policy which distracted us from our top national security priority of defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates, I am encouraged by President Obama's focus on Afghanistan where the 9/11 attacks originated," Sen. Feingold said in a statement that received little to no attention Tuesday. "But we need to make sure we have a strategy in place for Afghanistan that will actually work before we commit thousands more U.S. troops. A military escalation without a strategy to address the complex problems facing Afghanistan and the region could alienate the Afghan people and make it much more difficult to achieve our top national security goal of defeating al Qaeda."

"If the devastating policies of the administration have proved anything, it's that we need to ask tough questions before deploying our brave service members“ and that we need to be suspicious of Washington 'group think,'" he wrote in a Christian Science Monitor editorial last October. "Otherwise, we are setting ourselves up for failure."

"Sending more US troops made sense in, say, 2006, and it may still make sense today," he wrote. "The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly over the past year, however, despite a larger US and coalition military presence.

"We need to ask: After seven years of war, will more troops help us achieve our strategic goals in Afghanistan?" he continued. "How many troops would be needed and for how long? Is there a danger that a heavier military footprint will further alienate the population, and, if so, what are the alternatives? And“ with the lessons of Iraq in mind“ will this approach advance our top national security priority, namely defeating Al Qaeda?"

"We must target Al Qaeda aggressively, and we cannot allow Afghanistan to be used again as a launching pad for attacks on America," he added. "It is far from clear, however, that a larger military presence there would advance these goals."

[Thrill]

1. I think its already been reported Obama told them

to give him a strategy and End Game before he signed off on it.

[bigtree]

2. the president says that policy is still 'under review'

. . . even as he orders this new deployment.

[spanone]

3. i don't think that's too much to ask before we have body bags returning

[undeterred]

4. Good thing for Feingold to say.

He is up for re-election next year and I think this is going to be an issue. He has always had a reasonable position on Iraq. But I don't think anyone understands why we are building up troops in Afghanistan, and since he has backed this war, people want to know why.

[billyoc]

5. SPOILER ALERT

[slipslidingaway]

6. K&R for Feingold's questions n/t

[slipslidingaway]

7. kick n/t

[bigtree]

8. .