iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Democrats Largely Disappointed With Obama's Afghanistan Announcement


First Posted: 06/22/11 10:37 PM ET Updated: 08/22/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers who have been pressing for a sizable and significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan almost universally expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday night.

The president told the nation in a prime time address that 10,000 U.S. troops will be leaving the war by the end of 2011, with another 23,000 coming out by autumn of 2012. The drawdown will fully remove the troops that went in as part of the "surge" that Obama announced in his 2009 speech at West Point. Approximately 68,000 troops will still be fighting in the war.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters on Tuesday that the president needed to put forward, at a minimum, an initial withdrawal of 15,000 troops -- a number that Obama fell short of -- to meet his promise of a "significant" drawdown.

"The president's decision represents a positive development, although in my view the conditions on the ground justify an even larger drawdown of U.S. troops this year than the president announced tonight," he said in a statement after the speech. "I will continue to advocate for an accelerated drawdown in the months ahead, and for enhanced training and partnering with Afghan forces, because only they can provide durable security for their nation."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has been a vocal supporter of a robust withdrawal, also said president's announcement was not what she had been hoping for. "It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the President laid out -- and we will continue to press for a better outcome," she said.

"[W]e'll have twice as many combat troops in Afghanistan at the end of his term than we did at the beginning. We should instead have a path to bring those troops home," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Merkley, along with Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), was one of the authors of a letter calling for a "sizable and sustained reduction" of military forces in Afghanistan, which garnered the support of 27 senators. Merkley said he would consider an initial reduction of 15,000 to 20,000 troops to be sizable.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is one of the co-sponsors of the Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, legislation that would require Obama to submit a plan to Congress by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces, including a completion day.

But Obama's speech on Wednesday did not have such a timetable. "Ending the surge in 2012 with a disappointing 10,000 combat troops coming home this year is not good enough. As I have advocated for months, it is time to shift course in Afghanistan to a counter-terrorism mission, with an aggressive drawdown of combat troops," said Gillibrand in response to the speech.

"I welcome the President's decision to redeploy 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer, but am disappointed he did not announce a change in strategy from a counterinsurgency to a counterterrorism mission," added Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who has advocated a strategic redirection toward a smaller military footprint. "Even with fewer troops, if we do not shift our strategy, we will be no closer to a truly secure and stable Afghanistan five years from now than we are today."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was the sponsor of a measure requiring the president to provide "a timeframe and completion date" for the transfer of military operations to Afghan authorities. It failed by just 12 votes last month. He criticized Obama's announcement on Wednesday as "insufficient."

"The president is right that we need to shift our strategy in Afghanistan," he said. "But a counter-terrorism strategy doesn't need 70,000 boots on the ground, any more than it needed 100,000 boots on the ground. What the president needs to tell us is how -- and when -- he's going to bring all the troops home."

Rep. Pete Welch (D-Vt.) called Obama's plan "a welcome step in the right direction" but said he will continue to urge him to "bring more troops home sooner and faster."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, sent out a press release saying the Afghanistan war continues "with no end in sight."

"While I appreciate that the President has decided to bring home some troops this year, the slow speed of this withdrawal unfortunately ensures that the vast majority of our servicemen and women will be embroiled in an unaffordable military quagmire for at least two more years," he said.

And in an interview with The Huffington Post on Wednesday night, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) -- who called for the United States to reduce troop levels to 25,000 by the end of 2012 and to 10,000 by the end of 2013 -- called Obama's speech "disappointing."

"He is maintaining the same counterinsurgency, nation-building mission that we've now been on for more than a year -- one that's been incredibly expensive and commits tens of thousands of troops for the long term in Afghanistan," he said.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who was the only member of Congress to vote against the initial invasion into Afghanistan, called the planned drawdown "unacceptable."

"As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will work with members on both sides of the aisle to pass my amendment to end funding for combat operations in Afghanistan and to begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of our courageous troops," she said.

Mixed in with all this criticism was a few Democrats who did defend the president's announcement.

Udall's statement didn't criticize Obama's speech at all, but did urge him to "institute a 12 to 18 month flexible timeline for the Afghans to take control of their own security."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) characterized it as "a critical step in the right direction" that will "capitalize on the progress we’ve made in Afghanistan to finish the job and ensure al Qaeda’s long-term, strategic defeat."

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said the new plan "makes it clear to the Afghan people that it is time for them to step up to control their own future because America's sons and daughters -- our most precious resources -- won't be there forever."

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) backed Obama, saying he "delivered on his promise to begin responsibly drawing down our troops in Afghanistan."

This story has been updated.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers who have been pressing for a sizable and significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan almost universally expressed disappointment with President Barack Oba...
WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers who have been pressing for a sizable and significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan almost universally expressed disappointment with President Barack Oba...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,365
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (124 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MoreFreedom
12:39 PM on 06/26/2011
Obama campaigned to bring the troops home, but there are more fighting war now than when he took office. Though he did say Afghanistan was the good war (is the corrupt Karzai good?). Obama's a neo-con - to argue otherwise is to ignore the facts. Even his small reduction in troops in Afghanistan will ensure lots of money goes to the military industrial complex, and from there to his and others campaign coffers too.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
05:45 AM on 06/25/2011
Democrats are also disapointed that republican congressmen act like mentally challenged teen agers when told they cant touch themselves in Public, when told that corperate helicopters are not , no way, charitable organizations!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:54 AM on 06/25/2011
I bet you voted for Weiner and cryed when the Dems tea bagged him.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
12:28 PM on 06/25/2011
And I will wager that everytime you hear the DEmocratics, demand an Investigation into the Illigal activities of the Bush 2 administration,That caused the 2008 collapes of our ecconomy and the self created Lies that the Bushes Manipulated into a war On a nation that did not threaten the USA, an Cost our great American Military, 4500 Brothers and sisters of Mine, Because Jr.and Dick less, Murdered those children, ou tmteefore grind your teeth,and spit bone, or some other white vicus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
garboop2
07:28 PM on 06/24/2011
Brawnydoc had actually not mde a half-bad suggestian to me, that our mil (my husband is still in the mil) would be better off helping beat the drug cartel. Good thinking Brawnydoc! That never occured to me. Everyone is right in that we should absolutely never have been in Iraque. I am glad that are finally drawing down our militar in Afg, albeit very slowly; but the fact is that America throuout history has always been in wars. Always! That will never stop for a couple of reasons. The Saudi War, was for 1 reason and 1 only, we hadn't been in one in a long time, so there was only one way for our troops to learn for real warfare. There it was. Wars are (not now) but in eons gone by have been responsible for rebuilding our economy. Whether or not we like it, that's the way it is. Finally, America is seen as the world power, better said--rescuer of other nations. It just is the way it is.
02:31 PM on 06/24/2011
Why the foot dragging on bringing home the troops? Why should they have to be held in that miserable country until 2014-15. We have a lot of infrastructure work to be done in our own country. If we had some competent civilian organizers it would create a lot of jobs. We have let the military dictate for too many years. Their policies have run an evil course of brutality and destruction for countless years. Can we afford to keep feeding the beast of war?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
07:40 AM on 06/25/2011
We bailed from Afghanistan once before after the Soviets left. Doing that led directly to why we had to go back in, in force, this time.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
12:31 PM on 06/25/2011
Rewriting History, seems to Be a Grover Norquest creation. Your rendition, is neither Meritous nor exemplory, Back under the bridge yeh without either kndle nor original thought.
01:56 PM on 06/25/2011
What have we achieved by going back?? More death and debt. The Osama excuse for being there is OVER.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
11:11 AM on 06/26/2011
3000-5000 a month Max is what the reduction can max out at! 10 months per year, 30,000 per year! (summer months much less, due to heavy fighting)
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
12:25 PM on 06/24/2011
Once Usama was killed we have no more reason to be there. Afganistan is culturally driven by Tribalism, it will revert back to what its always been within a year of our leaving, so we might as well pull out 100% now..

Afganistan history, going back hundreds of years has been unchanged..and it will remain so.
08:52 AM on 06/24/2011
Ok, let me get this straight, the Republicans hate the idea of drawing down the troop levels so quickly and many Dems think it is too slow, well then I think we are in the just the right spot. Also, I look at most of the wording from congress' responses and all mention a "responsible" withdrawal from Afganistan, isn't that just good politics for their their constituents. It's a pretty vague term. For some Dems that means tomorrow and for most Republicans I think that means close to never!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
07:41 AM on 06/25/2011
I've made this point too many times to count and almost no one agrees with me. All the right people on both fringes are mad over this, which, IMHO, means Obama is drawing a reasonable middle ground over it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MoreFreedom
12:43 PM on 06/26/2011
As long as you realize what Obama's middle ground is. And that would be more troops fighting now than when he took office. Obama is a neo-con, he wants war because he, and others, get campaign cash from the military industrial complex. Of course, that's not what he campaigned on either.
07:03 AM on 06/24/2011
The entire mideast will revert to tribal warfare once our troops leave, like they have been for thousands of years
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ANlMAL
Sit Side By Side With Nothing!
08:13 AM on 06/24/2011
huh? really? i do hope your joking.
photo
checkmoot
We have met the enemy and he is us.
11:50 AM on 06/24/2011
Where did you read that ? The deadliest tribal warfare I recall was, until about 60 years ago, in Europe and that had been going on for centuries.
06:59 AM on 06/24/2011
We should never invaded to begin with
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph Vala
Bringin' the lumber
09:41 AM on 06/24/2011
Never should have invaded a country whose military declared war on us by killing thousands of innocent civilians??? Nice post, comrade :-\
09:56 AM on 06/24/2011
When did Afghanistan ever have a military? Are you going to raise all our soldiers back from the dead? Replace the hundreds of billions spent?

Iraq was not involved with 9/11.
photo
checkmoot
We have met the enemy and he is us.
11:53 AM on 06/24/2011
What country are you talking about ? Al Qaeda is not a country, you didn't know that ??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
12:54 AM on 06/24/2011
So far, the experiment begun by Reagan and aggravated by the Bush years and Clinton's second term, with a Repub-dominated Congress, has conclusively refuted Reaganomics, Thatcherism, and the Greenspan doctrine.
John Maynard Keynes, who backed Woodrow Wilson's position on the "Peace of Versailles" and essentially predicted the conditions that spawned the Nazis, was the economic authority behind FDR's rescue of the USA economy from the fools who plunged us into the 1930 Depression.
We have now had the world plunged into hard economic times, and it's time to reject all the theory behind the notion that private enterprise at the mega-corporate level is any better than Chicago gangsters or Communist oligarchies at substituting for actual democratic government.

This particularly applies to science-dependent enterprises, which are monstrously crippled by proprietary non-sharing.
And it's time for a 4-day week at the same weekly income for actual workers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
07:43 AM on 06/25/2011
The only thing trickling is down the insides of their legs.
10:51 PM on 06/23/2011
Don't blame Obama! War and death is your national industry, and the military is nothing but a jobs project for those who would hardly make it otherwise! Deal with that!
VictoriasNoSecret
Success: the byproduct of doing what's right.
11:00 PM on 06/23/2011
Is that why so many of our military are Ivy League graduates? You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about, or the potential in our military. Your disrespect for our servicemen and women is deplorable. It takes courage to enlist. I'm sure you didn't, and don't have any relatives who did.
12:47 AM on 06/24/2011
Oh really??? So what percentage of your enlisted soldiers, who make up the overwhelming majority of the forces are Ivy Leaguers? It doesn't take courage to enlist! It takes courage to refuse to serve the Evil Empire, it takes courage to refuse to invade other sovereign nations for oil, it takes courage to be a conscientious objector! Stay wrapped in your flag!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
10:31 PM on 06/23/2011
Sen.Gildabran is correct. another 33,000 would be apropriate! This with draw takes him down to double of Bush2, and that aint good!
10:17 PM on 06/23/2011
Good grief: he's not a liberal, so he loses that portion of the party; he's not a fiscal manager, so he loses the Yellow Dawgs. What's left, a mini Bush? No thanks --- if the Repubs can run anyone who is not a holy roller, I'll cross party lines, thank you.
VictoriasNoSecret
Success: the byproduct of doing what's right.
10:51 PM on 06/23/2011
You're going to love Rick Perry!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
12:41 PM on 06/25/2011
News flash: Rick Perry Installs in a eternal "flaming cross" in his back yard to burn off the oil pools left by fracking , and drilling . along with letting airlines know where to kick out passengers after the F.A.A close all the airports in Texas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
07:43 AM on 06/25/2011
No one in the GOP today is *not* a holy roller.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
12:43 PM on 06/25/2011
sept Michele steele.....and McCains daughter. Meghan Mccain
VictoriasNoSecret
Success: the byproduct of doing what's right.
10:11 PM on 06/23/2011
Has it occurred to you people that all the spending you're fussing about and blaming on Bush, still, is the same spending Senator Obama voted to get passed during that same Bush era?

He wanted it to go through then but now as president, he's griping about it and placing blame....but HE VOTED FOR IT!

Assume responsibility for your own actions!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trespanieli
08:39 PM on 06/23/2011
Not to worry. The republicans aren't happy with it either. And the military industrial complex doesn't want to lose it's gravy train.
07:53 PM on 06/23/2011
We need the equivalent of a WPA and CCC from the 1920's to supply employment for ALL our returning military, as well as shore up an infrastructure which is falling apart.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
08:01 PM on 06/23/2011
That is a good suggestion, but unfortunately this president and his advisors don't want any possible similarity to Franklin Roosevelt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Anderson
When the Rebels become the Tyrants
07:44 AM on 06/25/2011
Why do you say that?
08:11 PM on 06/23/2011
I second that!

We need jobs and to make all of the rich corporations pay taxes! (yeah, GE!)
07:00 AM on 06/24/2011
Raise taxes on businesses and they just raise their prices to the public.