Congressional Leaders Say Taliban Is Stronger

WASHINGTON -- The leaders of the congressional committees said Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger since President Barack Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2010.

The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., challenges Obama's own assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the "tide had turned" and that "we broke the Taliban's momentum."

Feinstein and Rogers told CNN's "State of the Union" they aren't so sure. The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come back. I'm not so sure," Feinstein said. "The Taliban has a shadow system of governors in many provinces."

When asked if the Taliban's capabilities have been degraded since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago, Feinstein said: "I think we'd both say that what we've found is that the Taliban is stronger."

More than 1,800 U.S. troops have been killed in the decade-long war. About 88,000 service members remain deployed, down from a peak of more than 100,000 last year. More troops are expected to leave by the end of summer with all combat troops gone by the end of 2014.

Feinstein said she wishes she had the chance to meet with Pakistan's leaders to discuss the need for more help from the country to break up the Haqqani network. Congress has passed various restrictions on U.S. aid in Pakistan after Osama bin Laden was found hiding within its borders. A recent defense policy bill would withhold 60 percent of military aid if the defense secretary can't show the money will be effective in fighting the Taliban and ensuring Pakistan helps with efforts to counter roadside bombs.

Rogers said that he and Feinstein agree the first step should be for the U.S. to designate the Haqqani group a terrorist network and "take aggressive steps" to disrupt their operations. He said that group is responsible for nearly 500 U.S. deaths and continues to operate outposts along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Republicans have turned the war into a campaign issue, despite waning public support for the conflict, by criticizing Obama for setting an end date for U.S. combat operations.

"We ought to have a hard discussion about saying listen, war is when one side wins and one side loses," said Rogers. "And if we don't get to that calculation of strategic defeat of the Taliban, you're not going to get to a place where you can rest assured that you (U.S. troops) can come home and a safe haven does not reestablish itself."

Comments

[KJohns]

08:34 PM on 05/13/2012

Fun Fact: Politicians often like to reassure Americans with the phrase that "all COMBAT troops will be gone by 20xx". I was in Iraq, (as a soldier), from September 2009 to September 2010. Sometime during that deployment, (I can't remember when exactly), I read that all of the 'combat' troops were gone. The only thing that happened was a nomenclature change. You see, before we had Brigade Combat Teams, (like 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division etc.), and overnight the exact same units became "Advise and Assist Brigades"...same people, same numbers, doing the same kind of things, but they were no longer 'combat troops'. Pretty slick, huh?

[waunder]

09:32 AM on 05/08/2012

As long as the US is lapping up oil in their region and the war cows are mooing, we'll be fighting the hornets and getting stung. The best way to keep from getting us ALL stung is to stay on our property and leave them to he.. alone!

[l78lancer]

06:48 PM on 05/07/2012

Normally I tend to listen with with respect and give credence to what Feinstein says, however, at the juncture I really don't care what Karzi says, what his needs are, his safety, and it is time for the US to be gone. He has been more of a hinderance than a help and could never be trusted. He has undermined the effort at every turn. His government has been unabatedly corrupt. He has done his own people a disservice. I suspect that he will not survive more that days to weeks after the US "leaves" in 2014, either at the hands of his military, the Taliban, or Pakistan. As for Rogers' comment about strategic "defeat" of the Taliban, it appears that may be a false objective. 100 years from now the Taliban will be in that area, even if there is no longer a state called Afghanistan. Supporting Afghanistan over the next 10 years in controlling the Taliban themselves is preferable to continuing to pour lives and treasure into a mission that has more down side than up. The ONLY benefit to remaining there one day longer is the strategic positioning Afghanistan provides in accessing Iran.

[2B4real]

06:11 PM on 05/07/2012

"The tide has turned"? What a joke! The Taliban is nothing more then a local insurgency that does not export terror - Al Qaeda does that. And they are back in Iraq now that Obama got booted out when he could not get SOFA re-negotiated. But Obama focused on the wrong place and now has committed our blood and treasure to the drug dealer Karzai for another twelve years in this sinkhole. Tell me, what is there to "win" in Afghanistan? What's the end game please, Obamaites?

[coolfireone]

05:02 PM on 05/07/2012

Well, I just posted my explanation on al Qaida, etc., on the wrong article. It doesn't pertain to this article. I goofed. Anyway, the post should be interesting and is pretty self-explanatory. There's much more to be said on the subject. My apologies for posting on wrong article.

[coolfireone]

04:59 PM on 05/07/2012

Yes, to all he says. He is correct on the origins of what is called al Qaida, first location, then listing of those recruited to assist us against Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, number was approx. 200, way down now. No central organization beyond those 200. US began using the term after Africa bombings to designate a bin Laden terrorist group.

At signing of famous 1998 fatwah, bin laden had no organization. The other signers did, e.g., Rifa'i Taha Musa (Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya or The Islamic Group, (IG) which bombed the WTC in 1993), and Adman al-Zawahiri, (amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt (Egyptian Islamic jihad (EIJ) - now leading "al-Qaida").

Note none of our government has ever told our citizens of the other signers of that 1998 fatwah, only naming bin Laden, when actually he was only one of five, and the only one without an organization.

[laurelphot]

12:45 PM on 05/07/2012

The Talibab is stronger today, than it was during the winter. After all, now it is fighting season.

[laurelphot]

12:43 PM on 05/07/2012

POLITICANS ALWAYS SAY WHAT THEY THINK WILL HARVEST THE MOST VOTES FOR THEMSELVES.
ALL FACTS ARE ARBATRARY, AND CAN SPINN IN THEY DIRECTION THAT IS SELFSERVING.

[liesabouttown]

12:32 PM on 05/07/2012

I think we should leave Afghanistan. But it should be with dignity and with pictures. Drop big bombs and wait for flash.

[oleperfessur]

12:46 PM on 05/07/2012

How about a photo-op on an aircraft carrier with a "We Won" banner in the background.

[KJohns]

08:36 PM on 05/13/2012

Nice, but I favor a giant banner reading "Fudge [sic] It!"

[oleperfessur]

12:29 PM on 05/07/2012

The Taliban won when George W decided to invade Iraq. 2nd time the US abandoned the Afghans, 1st after the USSR left in the 90's and made Osama more radical.. Might have been a chance, probably not but a chance to stabalize the country. Allowed the Taliban to regroup. But then, there wasn't any oil in Afghanistan and Cheney was an oil man. An even more important thing, after 9/11 the Muslim world was largely favorable to the US. After the invasion of Iraq, it became great event to recruit radicals and suicide bombers.

[2B4real]

06:13 PM on 05/07/2012

And what was there/is worth fighting for in Afghanistan? What is there to "win" as opposed to Iraq and what's the end game of twelve more years of blood and treasure that Obama just committed America to?

[oleperfessur]

06:44 PM on 05/07/2012

You somehow don't seem to notice! No oil in Afghanistan but now seems to be trillions in natural resources, minerals, etc. Cheney and Bush seemed to be so fixated on finishing the job that George's father couldn't, not to mention the access to oil reserves in Iraq, that getting rid of Sadaam was all important. Well, they "won" but at the cost of Afghanistan, probably Iraq and losing the support of the entire Muslim world.

[zt54]

05:07 PM on 05/11/2012

Not about the oil...put down the coffee.

[leslieowenct]

12:11 PM on 05/07/2012

Nothing quite like the politics of paranoia...

[Sral Rolyat]

11:25 AM on 05/07/2012

Not getting stronger. Just changing tactics. Taliban is trying to become more politically relevant.

Wars end with a politcal process not a military operation. The strength of the Taliban should be measured in politcal influence. Not body counts.

[zt54]

11:08 AM on 05/07/2012

Obama told them the date of withdrawl which also is the victory in Afghanistan date for Taliban.

Of course the entire Islamic World wants to become a taliban in 2014. They are just beginning to ramp up numbers now.

Another clear and certain Obama failure to understand.

[oleperfessur]

12:30 PM on 05/07/2012

The withdrawan date was sewt by George, not Obama.

[ConnieDr]

11:04 AM on 05/07/2012

And just think how much stronger they'll be once those taliban figher prisioners Obama is releasing back into their fold!

[Sral Rolyat]

11:26 AM on 05/07/2012

You are unimformed.

[chadizzy]

01:52 PM on 05/07/2012

No it looks like you are misinformed!

[unclogum]

10:58 AM on 05/07/2012

That would be the Republican dream , would it not, proof that Obama messed up.A gate way for Mitt and his parties war hawks to start carnage anew. Send your kids to protect Mitt and his 5 this time. My families sitting it out.