Harman Skeptical About More Troops for Afghanistan
Jane Harman (D-CA) is one of the most hawkish House Democrats. She even showed up at the launch party for a new neocon outfit called The Foreign Policy Initiative back in March. So this seems significant:
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), often hawkish on national security issues, is lining up with liberal Democrats against any further combat troop increases in Afghanistan.
Harman, a longtime Intelligence Committee member, told a Brookings Institution gathering today that any further increases “wouldn’t be well received” on Capitol Hill.
Harman’s view is that the Obama administration should deal with government corruption, and build up Afghan forces, before Congress is asked to pay for more U.S. troops. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U,S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has asked for 40,000 additional troops.
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. It’s not really General McChrystal’s place to restrain himself in the quantity of resources he asks for. Probably ever senior level manager of any public or private sector endeavor thinks his bosses should give him more money and personnel to work with. But it’s the job of Congress and the White House to reach an overall judgment about all the considerations in play.
11 Responses to “Harman Skeptical About More Troops for Afghanistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I think we should skip many of these arguments and go straight to debating what size and shape table to sit around whilst suing for peace.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Just goes to show what a little primary challenge can do!
Harman is in tight with the neocons and the MIC, but she is being challenged by Marcy Winograd (Winograd4Congress.com) in the 2010 primary. Winograd is anti-war.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Ron:
Bingo!! The only reason she is spouting this stuff is because Winograd is challenging her. In a heavily Democratic district.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“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…”
Of course that’s what they were supposed to be doing all along, but whoring for campaign donors, getting fat on pork, dreaming up the next deceptive 30 second TV spot….well, priorities, you know.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
As ron said, this should return you to a familiar theme about the power of primaries. Lest you think that Winograd is a non-entity, she got 40% of the vote in a late primary challenge to Harman in 2006. The region (it’s my area) has grown more Democratic since then, and unlike in ‘06, when Winograd jumped into the race in February, she’s been running for several months.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
[...] commentators have suggested that this displays a newfound skepticism on Capitol Hill for the Afghanistan mission. That may be, [...]
October 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bingo!! The only reason she is spouting this stuff is because Winograd is challenging her. In a heavily Democratic district.
Exactly. It goes to show why people like Soullite bleating on blogs all day is so irrelevant. Jane Harman doesn’t care about the fury of the netroots. She cares about staying in office, like they all do. You want to make them vote the way you want, fund and support credible primary challenges. It’s one of very few ways you can actually affect their behavior.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
…Just pass a damn timeline for Afghanistan already.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The War in Afghanistan is over, it’s all about saving face now.
http://watching-history.blogspot.com/2009/10/war-in-afghanistan-2001-201x.html
October 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Like some guy smarter than me said, after seven years it’s no longer a war, it’s an occupation. And since the guys who don’t want us there seem to move around with impunity, it would appear that the population there doesn’t particularly want us either.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
[...] Representative Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Senator Lieberman (I-Conn.) argue President Obama should fully resource the counterinsurgency campaign that will be “focused on protecting the Afghan population, building up the Afghan national security forces and improving Afghan governance.” But Matthew Yglesias reports that Representative Jane Harman (D-Cali.) has expressed doubts about a troop increase. [...]