Leading Democratic Hawk Jane Harman Opposes Troop Increase In Afghanistan

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/17/harman-on-afghanistan/


Leading Democratic Hawk Jane Harman Opposes Troop Increase In Afghanistan


Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who has earned a reputation as a hawkish Democrat, has indicated that she is aligning with House liberals against sending more troops to Afghanistan. In the past, Harman had indicated support for increasing troops, stipulating that the surge should be tied to progress against corruption in Afghanistan. According to The Swamp, Harman is now less inclined to pour more U.S. troops into the conflict:



Earlier this year, Harman spoke at the inaugural conference of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), Bill Kristol’s reincarnation of the Project for a New American Century. FPI has been advocating fiercely in favor of a surge in Afghanistan. Reporting from the FPI conference at the time, The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss wrote:

To her credit, Harman acknowledged the negative effect of the Iraq war on the Afghanistan mission, stating that “we have under-resourced Afghanistan for too long, we took our eye off the ball when we went into Iraq. All of our resources were devoted to that effort.” Harman also said that the Obama administration must do a better job describing metrics for progress Afghanistan, and that the Congress has an important role to play in holding the administration accountable for whether benchmarks are being met.

She concluded at the time that the President was “on the right track,” and that “we have to hold this administration accountable for its plan in Afghanistan.” It appears Harman is now more concerned about the track Obama is pursuing.

Update: Yglesias adds, "Combined with David Obey’s views I hope this is a sign that members of Congress are going to start seriously looking at questions of cost and overall impact on the national interest."

And did the "good" Jane Harman from a parallel universe cross over? First she's in favor of a public option, now this?

Or does Marcy Winograd have her running so scared that she might start acting like a Democrat?

Haven't we had enough ratcheting up of fear and doom if we don't inject more resources and troops into a place that has no real government?

I'm skeptical of having a military commander (McChrystal) determine our foreign policy, especially when we don't have a clear objective, the concerns of the local people aren't consdered, and there's no end of the conflict in sight.

Of course a military commander is gonna ask for as much resources and personnel as he can get, but last time I checked, the president was the Commander in Chief. Miltary commanders don't run this country and never should. Good for Rep. Harman! Stand strong!

I have been disturbed to see all the glamorizing of McCrystal's kinder, gentler counter insurgency plans. Wow, he gets up early to run every day, he only eats one meal a day, he instructs our troops to befriend the people to help them resist the Taliban, etc.

Sure, talking with people instead of shooting them on sight or dropping bombs from drones is an improvement to Bush Gang style, but it just looks like a more palatable way to become further embroiled in "the graveyard of empires."

The Taliban will wait us out. And as Frontline showed, they'll hide out and when they find out who spoke to those friendly American troops, they'll beat them up and/or kill them.

So alas, the most effective thing would be to withdraw from Afghanistan too. Especially after the compromised elections.

I say "alas" because that is such a tough sell to the entrenched military industrial complex. But the Soviets went in there as "friends" too, and we helped the opposition embroil them in a long war that bankrupted their economy and destroyed their country, as Zbig has bragged. How can we not see that we are following in their footsteps?