The Senate, in an amendment to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, accepted a measure written by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) calling for a continued drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan, at a “steady pace” through the end of 2014, and a close to all combat operation “at the earliest date” possible.
The news here is that Merkley got a filibuster-proof majority for that measure, for the first time, with 12 Republicans and 50 out of 51 Democrats in support (Lieberman, of course, voted no; Wyden and McCaskill didn’t vote today). The 12 Republicans included:
Brown (R-MA), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Corker (R-TN), Grassley (R-IA), Hoeven (R-ND), Lee (R-UT), Lugar (R-IN), Moran (R-KS), Paul (R-KY), Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD), Toomey (R-PA)
Richard Lugar’s a lame duck, but also a respected member on foreign affairs issues. And even he’s throwing in the towel on Afghanistan. Here’s the full roll call.
This matters because there’s been a consistent effort of late on the part of the Pentagon to roll back the commitment to end combat operations in Afghanistan after 2014, just as there was around Iraq when the deadline approached. Gen. John Allen and other military planners envision a counter-terrorism force in Afghanistan on an almost permanent basis. The Senate resolution, which I’ll put below, is a non-binding “sense of the Congress,” but it’s a sharp stick in the eye of the generals who want to prolong the war:
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the President should, as previously announced by the President, continue to draw down United States troop levels at a steady pace through the end of 2014; and
end all regular combat operations by United States troops by not later than December 31, 2014, and take all possible steps to end such operations at the earliest date consistent with a safe and orderly draw down of United States troops in Afghanistan.
This follows on but also strengthens the President’s public comments about combat withdrawals, and makes it harder for the executive to defy the legislative branch, which has the power to cut off funding for the war. It’s as much a push back as Gen. Allen’s upcoming recommendations will be a push forward.
To get 12 Republicans to sign on here shows the bipartisan desire to just get out of Afghanistan already.
U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. William Tremblay/Released.





6 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
About effing time.
They are still going to leave at least ten thousand people there. Yesterday I heard a figure of between ten and twenty thousand.
why? and what are they doing there?
Keeping our military engine idling.
Ron Wyden (Duh-OR), AWOL. And on his colleague’s bill.
Uncle Leon says AQ is beat, and we’ve turned the corner, so I say pull ‘em out.
Here are the “turning point” comments for the last two years, and then, skipping some ‘turning points’, a T.P. from 2003.
Extensive Soviet exploration produced superb geological maps and reports that listed more than 1,400 mineral outcroppings, along with about 70 commercially viable deposits … The Soviet Union subsequently committed more than $650 million for resource exploration and development in Afghanistan, with proposed projects including an oil refinery capable of producing a half-million tons per annum, as well as a smelting complex for the Ainak deposit that was to have produced 1.5 million tons of copper per year. In the wake of the Soviet withdrawal a subsequent World Bank analysis projected that the Ainak copper production alone could eventually capture as much as 2 percent of the annual world market. The country is also blessed with massive coal deposits, one of which, the Hajigak iron deposit, in the Hindu Kush mountain range west of Kabul, is assessed as one of the largest high-grade deposits in the world. (John C. K. Daly, Analysis: Afghanistan’s untapped energy, UPI Energy, October 24, 2008, emphasis added)
Several trans-Afghan oil and gas pipeline projects have been contemplated including the planned $8.0 billion TAPI pipeline project (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) of 1900 km., which would transport Turkmen natural gas across Afghanistan in what is described as a “crucial transit corridor”. (See Gary Olson, Afghanistan has never been the ‘good and necessary’ war; it’s about control of oil, The Morning Call, October 1, 2009). Military escalation under the extended Af-Pak war bears a relationship to TAPI. Turkmenistan possesses third largest natural gas reserves after Russia and Iran. Strategic control over the transport routes out of Turkmenistan have been part of Washington’s agenda since the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991.
What was rarely contemplated in pipeline geopolitics, however, is that Afghanistan is not only adjacent to countries which are rich in oil and natural gas (e.g Turkmenistan), it also possesses within its territory sizeable untapped reserves of natural gas, coal and oil. Soviet estimates of the 1970s placed “Afghanistan’s ‘explored’ (proved plus probable) gas reserves at about 5 trillion cubic feet. The Hodja-Gugerdag’s initial reserves were placed at slightly more than 2 tcf.” (See, The Soviet Union to retain influence in Afghanistan, Oil & Gas Journal, May 2, 1988).