Levin Warns Against Time Lines For U.S. Forces In Afghanistan

The extent to which President Obama will receive Democrat support for escalating military forces in Afghanistan seems directly tied to his insistence that a timeline be put on the deployment of those forces.

But on Sunday, one of the most highly respected Democratic voices on matters of defense threw cold water on the idea of applying a timeline to an increase in U.S. military personnel.

Senate Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told Meet the Press that he did not think, "[The U.S.] can put a deadline" on America's military presence in Afghanistan. Instead, he insisted, there "should be milestones for success."

"I don't think we know enough about how these events are gonna unfold-- for there to be a deadline," Levin said. "But the mistake going back to that last question I believe that was made in Afghanistan was taking our eye off that ball. Not going after bin Laden when we had him where we wanted him. And the-- instead putting-- shifting our major focus to Iraq. I think that was the major mistake that was made. But now I think it would be a mistake for us to do anything other than to look for ways to succeed in Afghanistan. And there's a legitimate debate going on as to how do we succeed in Afghanistan. And that's what we ought to focus on. Setting a timeline, I don't think would be the right thing."

The comments are bound to be poorly received by those Democrats and progressives who already are fretting over sending 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But they appear to be an emerging mindset of the administration. While Obama himself said back in March that "there's got to be an exit strategy" for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, just several weeks ago his Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the "notion of times and exit strategies" a "strategic mistake."

Comments

[BARRISTER]

05:40 PM on 10/12/2009

Levin, like Lieberman, and many other Senators and Representatives represent Israel.

[RomeoMD25]

02:22 PM on 10/12/2009

The US Senate destined 75 million dollars for "democracy" operations in Iran, that is, supporting satellite TV channels aimed at demonizing Iranian leaders IN Iran, and financing resitance group, that is, terrorist groups which kill and kidnap civilians in the borders. All of this besides from a 30 year old boycott and lies to drive the world against the Persian nation. So how about you stop messing up with Iran for a change?

[lsbutch]

11:30 AM on 10/12/2009

I agree with Mr. Levin we need milestones not deadlines or timelines. We again went into a country with force and destroyed them, and now like a child we want to walk away with no responsibility for the damage we created, what is just about this motive? Train Afgah troops, teach local milita too, and support a government to get on their feet again and then we can leave with honor, respect, and know we did the right thing for everyone involved. Timelines are a joke, we already know that the situation is complicated, so why do we want to tie our hands with a timeline, when milestones are what everyone can agree upon needs to be met. I am a Vietnam vet, ex-Marine, and when we left I was horrified when the North came swarming in and killed thousand that they felt had supported US troops, and their lives mattered too didn't they? I was against the war, in Vietnam, in Afgah and especially in Iraq, but when we do something like start a war we must repair the damage that it causes, this is part of the cost of starting and carrying on a war, any war. There is must be a balance of honor between doing the right thing and withdrawing our troops.

[ResidualSelfImage]

10:38 AM on 10/12/2009

Levin, Shumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, all for keeping the Afghanistan occupation going.

[dadw5boys]

10:44 AM on 10/12/2009

no they won't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded#

These people will

http://www.afghanistanpetroleum.com/links.php

[rain33]

09:30 AM on 10/12/2009

president obama should have fired mcchrystal for pat tillman's death and get rid of some more clinton folks too who aren't looking out for his interests as a leader.

[dadw5boys]

10:29 AM on 10/12/2009

http://www.afghanistanpetroleum.com/links.php

[TN60]

09:28 AM on 10/12/2009

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/gen-keane-if-i-was-mcchrystal-id-resign-if-obama-ignored-my-advice.php?ref=fpb

One of the comments states my case exactly....Don't let the effin door hit you on the way out...

[dadw5boys]

10:29 AM on 10/12/2009

This is better

http://www.afghanistanpetroleum.com/links.php

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded#

[NicoloM]

11:37 AM on 10/12/2009

Just wondering--
why no EOI's from US identified interests for the petro resources? Are those interests fronted by locals?

[TN60]

12:55 PM on 10/12/2009

I read a long time ago about the gas pipeline that certain people were behind building. Now I can't remember what it was.

Bring on the poppies and the gas/oil and Halliburton.

Wouldn't you love to know just what Cheney's Energy meeting was about and why he kept it secret.? Seems like this pipeline was part of that.

[Peter007]

08:31 AM on 10/12/2009

Our mission in Afghanistan was to over throw the Taliban government. We did that. Our mission was never to create a new state. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration didn't care about the after effects of the war in Afghanistan. Its purpose was to send a message to other countries telling them if they support any type of terrorism, they will be bombed and over thrown.
The policy was based upon emotions and popular opinions. It was short term political gains without thinking about long term costs because politics is about current poll numbers.
I call it politics as usual.

[dadw5boys]

10:30 AM on 10/12/2009

yes

http://www.afghanistanpetroleum.com/links.php

[Johnniedog]

08:29 AM on 10/12/2009

Mr. Stein,
You are full of crap!! Anyone watching Levin on Sunday knows he was not advocating that there "not" be a timeline placed on our troops in Afghanistan. He was simply not willing to say wether or not there be a timeline because he did not want to undermine the Presidents on-going assesment, at this time. If you want a Democratic Senator to tell you, with detail, what he thinks, then you will have to ask them after the President comes out with his plan.
Levin may or may not be for a timeline but you will not get the answer till the president lays out his full plans.

[dadw5boys]

10:31 AM on 10/12/2009

but the oil companys need protection

http://www.afghanistanpetroleum.com/links.php

[PhilipTaylor]

08:27 AM on 10/12/2009

$250,000/year for a US Troop vs. $2,000/Year for an Afghan Troop

So 125 times more troops with training Afghans versus 1 US Troop

Plus the Afghan Troops will live and stay there!

What is so HARD to understand - Train BABY Train!

As soon as we train a couple hundred thousand Afghan Troops them we leave!

At two months per class of 10,000 troops we should be done in less than FOUR YEARS!

[Nonamnesiac]

07:15 AM on 10/12/2009

Immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq and Afghanistan is the only sane, rational policy. It's time for the wannabe teenagers from the military brass to the corrupt politicians bought by the military-industrial complex to be wholly replaced with grownups who were right about immediate withdrawal from Vietnam and were right about never invading Iraq as Obama's advisors.

Afghanistan is geometrically weaker than the US militarily and economically and is governed by a corrupt, but friendly, government. No Afghans attacked us on 9/11. Although Osama and others used Afghanistan as a base, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama to a neutral third country prior to the invasion, and, more to the point, there were numerous other countries where al Qaeda also had bases, and we can't occupy them all. Al Qaeda planned 9/11 in Germany and trained to fly planes into buildings in the US. The Taliban faced "shock and awe" and will not allow al Qaeda to plan and/or carry out attacks on the US from Afghanistan. We cannot afford the costs McChrystal projects anyway, as they will sustain and deepen the current recession/depression.

The "out now" grown-ups have been right on Vietnam and Iraq and are right on Afghanistan. Obama must stop listening to the barbarians who enjoy recommending war and profit from it. Unfortunately the condition of women is bad under the Taliban and bad under the current government. Out now, safely.

[dadw5boys]

10:32 AM on 10/12/2009

but the contracts are just being let

http://www.afghanistanpetroleum.com/links.php

[carl99e]

06:27 AM on 10/12/2009

It seems obvious to me and I am sure to many that the American approach to this "war" is not working. We seem to be digging a well in the desert. Obama's diplomatic approach, I believe, is the only viable venue we could successfully pursue. Gun and bullets will not bring us peace. The loss of more of America's young and treasure will not triumph in the end. Time for a reality check!!!

[JDM73]

05:40 AM on 10/12/2009

You've lost my respect, Mr. Levin. You're advocating in Afghanistan the sort of open-ended "strategy" you opposed in Iraq.
I'm tired of wars. I'm tired of political parties. I'm tired of this shell game.

[senorlou]

02:20 AM on 10/12/2009

I'm afraid we've lost this one. We have no choice but to come on back home. Might take a year or two, but we are flat broke. We are a penniless nation, much to Al Queda's delight. Their plan worked better than they could have ever imagined. They attacked us with a bunch of box cutters. Then they got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan. Lunatics that we are (were), we went ahead and poured far more resources and troops into the catastrophe in Iraq. Well, we have no more money and no more will to do this war. We can't put this one on the credit card.
Game over.

[dems08]

01:54 AM on 10/12/2009

it's not a matter of just sending in more troops

it's not a matter of just packing up and leaving

the mess in afghanistan is more complicated than we can comprehend

[senorlou]

02:17 AM on 10/12/2009

You're right. It is very, very complicated. What was the budget deficit again this year?

[Peter007]

08:35 AM on 10/12/2009

Oh what a tangle web we weave, when we practice to deceive....We broke it, we own it.

Its easy to leave. Pack up and get out in 1 week. The presence of US troops is causing the fighting in that country. No troops..problem solved for the US.

[dadw5boys]

10:33 AM on 10/12/2009

deceive

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/200905stagedterror.htm

[Bigidea]

01:28 AM on 10/12/2009

War in Afghanistan is lost. You can not fight a war and win against an ideology. Any ideology has to have its own demise when people realize it is wrong and doesn’t work for them. By fighting this war we are providing a cause for these ideologues. In the process we are doing the same old historical mistakes that we made else where. We are propping up corrupt governments and imposing a dubious democracy on these people. The situation is untenable. If Taliban are killed in the fight, they consider it as Jihad, they celebrate it. If one of our soldiers is dead, we have are counting our losses. All the money we throw at these countries is finding its way back to the enemy through corrupt elements in that country. How do you think they are buying all those ammunition all along? The only way we can win this is to adopt a policy of Containment. Let the Afghans and Pakistanis settle the scores while we provide only the logistic support. That’s the only way. Anyone has a better idea? Lets listen.

[senorlou]

02:24 AM on 10/12/2009

There is no better idea than what you just posted. To be honest, I don't think we'll be able to provide that logistic support. We're cleaned out completely.

[Peter007]

08:36 AM on 10/12/2009

We should have the same policy Switzerland has in this mess. They don't seem to be suffering any consequences for their policies.