Obama’s war plan must explain how more US troops increases size of Afghan forces, senator says

more images

more images

Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success

WASHINGTON — The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said Sunday that President Barack Obama’s anticipated plan for significantly expanding U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan must show how those reinforcements will help increase the size of the Afghan security forces.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said more Afghan army and police are central to succeeding in the 8-year-old war and more U.S. trainers and equipment can help meet that goal. But it’s unclear, Levin said, what role tens of thousands additional combat troops will play, and Obama has to make a compelling case during a national address he’s scheduled to give Tuesday night from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

“The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge,” said Levin, D-Mich. “We cannot, by ourselves, win (the) war.”

Levin’s remarks are a preview of the possible roadblocks Obama faces from his own party as he prepares to sell a broader, more expensive battle plan for Afghanistan to an American public weary of the conflict that began just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

At West Point, Obama is expected to announce an increase of up to 35,000 more U.S. forces to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize a weak Afghan government. The escalation, which would take place over the next year, would put more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion. Obama is also expected to outline his exit strategy.

Democrats concerned over the price tag have proposed a war tax to pay for operations. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has introduced legislation to impose a war surtax beginning in 2011. The bill would exempt service members and their families.

“If this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it’s important enough to pay for,” Obey said.

Lawmakers want a greater commitment from NATO allies so the U.S. isn’t footing the bill on its own.

“I’ve got a real problem about expanding this war where the rest of the world is sitting around and saying, ‘Isn’t it a nice thing that the taxpayers of the United States and the U.S. military are doing the work that the rest of the world should be doing?’” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said several allied nations will offer a total of 5,000 more troops. But speaking Saturday at a news conference in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad, Brown also said Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government must meet specific benchmarks that allow foreign troops to gradually hand over control of the fighting to local forces.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he was wary of strict benchmarks that put both sides in an untenable situation if they’re not met. But he said an early test of success will be whether Afghan forces can hold onto southern parts of the country after the U.S. and NATO succeed in chasing out the Taliban.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., also a member of the Armed Services Committee, said he is looking for Obama to spell out a detailed strategy that reaches beyond Afghanistan and involves protecting the U.S. from al-Qaida. That involves being influential in neighboring Pakistan and a combination of intelligence, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, he said.

“And the key element here is not just more troops. The key element is shifting the operations to the Afghanis,” Reed said. “And if that can be done, then I would support the president.”

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has recommended speeding up the growth of the Afghan army and police. He wants an overall Afghan security force of 400,000 — 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police officers — by October 2013.

Levin has proposed moving that date back by a year to 2012. He says the manpower is available to support the faster timetable.

A new Senate Foreign Relations Committee report about the failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora region in December 2001 underscores the Bush administration’s mistake of concentrating more on Iraq than Afghanistan, Levin added.

“We took our eye off the ball,” Levin said. “Instead of moving in on him at Tora Bora, the previous administration decided to move its forces to Iraq. It was a mistake then. And I think this report … just sort of reinforces that.”

Levin appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Lugar, Reed and Obey appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Sanders appeared on ABC’s “This Week.”

__

On the Net:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: foreign.senate.gov/