IN senators react to Afghanistan plan
WASHINGTON, D.C. President Barack Obama announced Wednesday night he was pulling home 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by next summer, withdrawing the “surge” of forces he had sent to rescue a flailing effort. “The tide of war is receding,” said Obama . A total of 10,000 troops will leave the war zone by the end of this year and more than 20,000 additional forces will leave by the summer of 2012.
Senators Richard Lugar and Dan Coats emailed their responses to the president’s plans to NewsChannel 15 Wednesday. Portions of those responses are below:
Sen. Dan Coats , Indiana
“Despite the progress made since the troop surge, we cannot take our eye off the ball. We must learn from history and not allow Afghanistan to become a sanctuary for terrorists again. There is no doubt that the Afghan government needs to accept more responsibility for security, development, and above all, governance. The job of nation building is that of the Afghans and not Americans.”
“I do not agree with the president’s decision to announce the number of troops and the timing of 2012 withdrawals. While goals should be set, I believe we need to assess the situation as it changes, allow for flexibility, and not presume to know what will be needed on the battlefield in next year’s fighting season. We must be attentive to the advice of our military commanders on the ground, not political calculations. A drawdown of troops must not adversely affect our ability to apply maximum pressure on the insurgency.”
Sen. Richard Lugar , Indiana
“Much of the discussion about U.S. policy in the region has been focused on the specific question of how many troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan. I believe troop withdrawals are warranted at this stage, but our policy in Afghanistan is in need of much more than troop reductions on a political timetable.”
“The president should put forward a plan that includes a more narrow definition of success in Afghanistan based on U.S. vital interests and a sober analysis of what is possible to achieve. It should eliminate ambiguity about U.S. goals and make clear that we are not engaged in broad nation building. It should include an explanation of what metrics must be satisfied to achieve the original intent of the mission – to prevent Afghanistan territory from being used as a terrorist safe haven. Such a plan should designate and eliminate those activities that are not intrinsic to our core counterterrorism objectives.”
“It is essential that Afghanistan be viewed in the broader strategic context. If we set out to reapportion our worldwide military and diplomatic assets without reference to where they are now, no rational review would commit nearly 100,000 troops and $100 billion a year to Afghanistan. An additional 31,000 troops are in the region supporting Afghanistan operations. The country does not hold that level of strategic value for us, especially at a time when our nation is confronting a debt crisis and our armed forces are being strained by repeated combat deployments.”
Similar Posts:
- Pence, Stutzman defy Obama on Libya
- Lugar joins Fair Tax push
- Campaign aims to aid military families
- House rejects raising debt ceiling
- Bayh accepts fifth post-Senate job
