Lawmakers react to Afghan strategy

I support the President's decision to follow the advice of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal in ordering a surge of forces into Afghanistan. The additional forces in support of a counterinsurgency strategy will allow our commanders to begin the difficult work of preparing and deploying the ground forces necessary to reverse the momentum of the Taliban. The president was right to call for building a sufficient 'Afghan capacity' that will allow for our troops to come home, rather than setting a hard withdrawal date that's not based on conditions on the ground or the advice of our generals.

We owe it to the American people to ensure that Afghanistan never again serves as a sanctuary for Al Qaeda. We owe it to the brave Americans who are now or will be deployed in pursuit of this objective to provide every resource necessary to prevail. As this surge of forces produces results in security, governance and in capabilities of the Afghanistan Security Forces, we must ensure that the transition of responsibilities is based on conditions, not timelines.

The plan presented is balanced. It provides the resources, in partnership with allied nations, that the military has said are needed to accomplish our objectives, while also making it clear to the Karzai government and the Afghan people that our commitment is not without limit. His statement made it clear that there is an expectation that Afghanistan must transition to a place of self-reliance in the near term. Such an expectation is appropriate and necessary.

It is encouraging that President Obama has finally concluded his re-analysis of his previous Afghanistan strategy and granted the request of his own generals for reinforcements. Success remains within reach, but the President must deploy these forces expeditiously. He must make winning the War on Terror his top priority, instead of meeting arbitrary political deadlines for withdrawal. Setting a draw down date before this surge has even begun is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success.

The president tonight tried to walk a line between the political views of those who are ready to give up on the war in Afghanistan, and the real-world needs of both our troops on the ground and the Afghan people, all of whom need to have confidence that the U.S. is there to get the job done.

While I'm pleased that he will take steps toward adopting General McChrystal's troop level recommendations, setting a published timetable while announcing a troop increase will satisfy neither of those groups.

I continue to believe that our troops and their commanders need clear and unambiguous strategic direction to fight and win the war in Afghanistan. As I've said in the past, General McChrystal should testify directly to Congress about whether the latest strategy out of the White House will achieve success in Afghanistan.

After months of deliberation, the president has decided to endorse the request for reinforcements by our commanding officer in Afghanistan and I support his decision.

By calling for a surge of forces in Afghanistan, President Obama is embracing the counter-insurgency strategy that succeeded in Iraq, and if given the chance can succeed again.

As commander in chief, the president has an obligation to ensure that our soldiers have the resources they need to get the job done and to ensure that the American people understand the importance of the mission.

The war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity and a decisive victory over the Taliban and Al Qaeda must remain our unchanging objective. The goal of American forces in Afghanistan must be nothing less than a decisive victory for freedom.

I look forward to hearing from Secretary of Defense Gates and General Stanley McChrystal in the coming days as to how they plan to deploy the additional resources in a manner that will yield a decisive victory.

While reinforcements are critical to achieving victory, the morale of our troops and the unequivocal support of those at home is equally important.

Our brave men and women in uniform need to know that those who send them into battle will stand by them until the battle is won. Congress should resist the temptation to impose artificial timelines for withdrawal or benchmarks as they only demoralize our troops and embolden our enemies. Telling the enemy when your commitment to fight will run out is a prescription for defeat.

Congress should also reject any effort to pass a tax increase on the backs of our soldiers. Levying a war 'surtax' at a time of runaway federal spending is an insult to our troops and would only divide the country when public support for the war is more important than ever.

The American people continue to offer their loved ones and their resources in support of freedom in Afghanistan. It is deeply offensive to suggest that they should sacrifice even more because Washington refuses to practice fiscal discipline. Congress should demonstrate its own ability to make the tough choices on spending instead of using the war in Afghanistan as an excuse to further burden American taxpayers.

The president reached the right conclusion that a broad counterinsurgency strategy is needed to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda; however, I am profoundly disappointed in the president's sluggish approach to this overdue decision. Since the success of the troop surge in Iraq and General McChrystal's August recommendation of a similar approach in Afghanistan, the way forward has been clear for months. The inexcusable decision-making delays during the past eight months has demonstrated to our troops and the world that President Obama would rather bow to foreign leaders than make tough choices necessary to achieve success in Afghanistan.

It is imperative we stay in Afghanistan and support our troops with the resources they need until the job is done and the Taliban and al-Qaeda are no longer a threat to the Afghan people, Americans, and our allies- not based on an artificial exit timetable created in the Oval Office.

I think the president has a sensible plan, both short- and- long term, to empower the Afghan people and allow for U.S. troops to complete their mission and come home," said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat and member of two key Senate Committees overseeing the war effort, Intelligence and Armed Services. "The plan will allow 50,000 additional Afghan troops to be trained by next July so they can hold areas that are turned over to them. And our overall mission remains the same: wiping out Al Qaeda and diminishing its supporters, like, Taliban insurgents, while keeping up the pressure in the Pakistan border region.

I support the president for finally reaching a decision to provide most of the troops requested by General McChrystal, and I hope our allies will step up to commit additional resources as well. However, announcing an arbitrary withdrawal deadline before these troops even set foot in Afghanistan undercuts their efforts and calls our resolve into question. I will listen with great interest when Administration officials provide more details in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and hope they signal a clear commitment to the mission in Afghanistan.

I applaud the President's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. While this decision is long overdue, I'm pleased that the President has listened to our commanders on the ground as they aggressively pursue a multi-dimensional counter-insurgency strategy to secure Afghanistan.

Success in Afghanistan should be we win, they lose. I hope the President will use his speech to the American people tonight to outline the roadmap to winning. The speech I'd like to hear tonight would focus on the Administration's commitment to listen to our commanders on the ground, properly define the role of Afghan National Security Forces, and recognize we face a determined enemy who plan to test our resolve.

For the sake of our mission, American families at home, and our brave men and women in uniform, I hope the President will rally Congressional leaders behind his strategy and our troops' mission in Afghanistan.

I will carefully consider what the president said tonight, and I look forward to hearing from Secretary Gates and our generals as they explain to Congress over the next two weeks what our strategy will be in Afghanistan. We need a bipartisan strategy that we're prepared to see through to the end. My major concern is that the administration is more focused on an exit strategy than a success strategy. An exit strategy should come only after we've achieved success.

We are all pleased that the President's extended deliberations have come to a close," said Chairman Price. "It is encouraging that the President has not turned his back on Afghanistan, but serious questions were raised by his remarks tonight. The consequences of handing Afghanistan to al Qaeda and the Taliban remain grave, and it is essential that we support our troops in their mission. Having just returned from Afghanistan, it worries me that the President's commitment to our mission does not match that of our troops on the ground.

If we are to commit even one troop to further engagement in Afghanistan, it should be with the strategy that our commanders believe gives us the best shot at achieving their mission. While I have ultimate confidence in our commanders' ability to effectively utilize these additional troops, it is troubling that the President rejected General McChrystal's full request for resources. Even more concerning, the President managed to declare the beginning and the end of a military operation at the same time. This type of conflicting message does not offer confidence to our allies, gives our friends and enemies reason to doubt the President's resolve, and is simply counterproductive.

Tonight was an historic speech, but the real story will be decided by how the President moves forward. As these men and women begin to deploy into theatre, a larger dose of Presidential leadership and backbone will be required to make clear to the world that the United States can and will do what is necessary to degrade the ability of al Qaeda to seriously threaten America again."

We have to finish the job in Afghanistan that President Bush largely abandoned, and make sure that country never again becomes a haven for Al-Qaeda to plot terrorist attacks against Americans. I support President Obama's strategy, but we must have clear measurements for progress and demand improvements in both the Afghan government and security forces.

I am pleased that the President, after months of deliberation, is willing to provide General McChrystal with a substantial number of additional troops to carry out his mission in Afghanistan. But the key question is whether the President is fully committed to a strategy that provides a peaceful future for the people of Afghanistan and ceases the export of global terrorism from within its borders. While announcing a troop increase, the President also said that the United States will begin withdrawing forces in July 2011. There is merit in putting the Afghan people on notice that they need to take control of their future but we must be certain that the July 2011 date is not applied arbitrarily in a way that would cause our hard fought gains to quickly disappear.

The President has made the right decision to embrace a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan and to resource it properly. I think the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that will deploy as part of this mission, plus greater allied commitments, will enable us to reverse the momentum of the insurgency and create the conditions for success in Afghanistan. I support the President's decision, and I think it deserves the support of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.

What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the President's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region - all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war. A withdrawal date only emboldens Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight.

Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. In the days ahead, I will seek to address this and other questions I have about the President's policy, including my continuing concern about the civilian aspect of our strategy.

The past months of delay were extended and unnecessary, but that is now behind us. Our focus going forward must be on winning the war in Afghanistan. The nature of our commitment to the success of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and their region will change over time, but our commitment must remain enduring.

We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies. Americans need to know why winning this war is absolutely essential to our country's security. They need to know that things in Afghanistan will get worse before they get better, that casualties will likely go up in the year to come, but ultimately we will succeed.

America's fortunes in Afghanistan will rely heavily on the dependable courage and resourcefulness of our fighting men and women. The hour is late and the task immense. But we are in capable hands. For that, and so many other things, we are indebted to our troops beyond measure. May God bless them and keep them safe."

There is a point that I wanted to make, and as is so often the case, that point is better made by somebody else. So I yield to the Chinese general Sun Tzu, who wrote the following words 2500 years ago.

In war, victory should be swift. If victory is slow, men tire, morale sags, sieges exhaust strength, protracted campaigns drain the public treasury. If men are tired, morale low, strength exhausted, treasure spent, then the feudal lords will exploit the disarray and attack. This even the wisest will be powerless to mend. I have heard that in war, haste can be folly. But never have I seen a delay that was wise. No nation has ever benefited from a protracted war.

Mr. Speaker, that was true 2500 years ago and it is true today. We do not benefit from the protracted war in Afghanistan."

The American public needs no reminder of why the U.S. must have a military presence in Afghanistan right now - to eliminate the threat of al-Qaida launching more deadly attacks on our nation and our world. I have long supported this goal.

Tonight the President laid out a well considered plan for defeating terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His plan is comprehensive, it calls on larger contributions by other nations with a stake in the region and it is designed to restore the confidence of the Afghan people in their government. I am heartened the President's plan includes benchmarks for progress and most importantly, an exit strategy. I commend the President for thoroughly evaluating all his options and listening to the advice of his senior military and civilian leaders.

Alaskans have a personal stake in Afghanistan because 4,000 of our Alaska-based service members are serving there in harm's way today, with more Alaska soldiers to be deployed in the near future. As more young Americans are sent to the front lines, I'll do everything within my power to make sure they have the resources, equipment and right strategy they need to get the job done.

That starts tomorrow when Secretaries Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brief the Senate Armed Services Committee and answer questions from me and other senators."

With clarity and conviction, the President presented not only a sound strategy for sending our troops to Afghanistan, but also a clear plan to begin to bring them home. President Obama made a convincing case that sending additional troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is critical to our national security. After years of the previous administration's neglect, we will finally give this mission the attention and resources it demands.

We know that more troops alone will not be enough. Success requires a comprehensive, integrated military and civilian strategy, and after he carefully considered advice from both military and civilian leaders, I was pleased to hear the President outline exactly such an approach. It was also encouraging to hear the President acknowledge that we are not in this fight alone, that he is working to enhance our allies' contribution to this effort, and that he will demand accountability from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

More than anything, I am pleased that he made clear that our resources are not unlimited and our commitment is not open-ended. By laying out a strategy that will begin to bring our mission to a close within the next 18 months, the President drew an essential distinction between his approach to the war and that of the previous administration.

The President's decision honors our troops, including many from my home state of Nevada, and the sacrifices they are making to protect us here at home. I am convinced that his decision demonstrates the decisive leadership they deserve."

President Obama asked for time to make his decision on a new policy in Afghanistan. I am going to take some time to think through the proposal he presented tonight.

In seeking a range of informed and varied opinions and taking the time to carefully work through them, it is clear that President Obama understands the meaning of war, the lives that are at stake and the impact it has on thousands of families here at home. I know that he thought deeply about those risks and weighed them against the risk posed by threats to our homeland that remain in Afghanistan before coming to his decision.

I will not make a final judgment on this plan until I have had a chance to reflect upon it fully and, just as importantly, draw critical information from Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton, who we will have in front of the Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday. From the time I voted against authorizing the Iraq War, I have said that our focus should have instead remained on the base of operations for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda - the terrorists who killed 3,000 people on our homeland in 2001 and are eager to kill more innocent Americans. That base is now the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I believe if we had not lost our focus by diverting troops and resources to Iraq, we could have captured or killed bin Laden and exterminated al Qaeda by now.

Though we lost precious strategic advantages and international support in the years since, I still believe today that we must finish the job by capturing or killing bin Laden and dismantling al Qaeda. I do not, however, believe that acting as a national police force for Afghanistan on an indefinite basis is worthwhile - American troops will be killed unnecessarily and it will further drain our national budget during an economic recession. Therefore, my preference has been toward a targeted military operation that emphasizes counter-terrorism and focuses on routing al Qaeda, rather than engaging in other flare-ups around Afghanistan. This strategy goes hand-in-hand with what I have insisted upon in our Pakistan policy, which is more pressure on the Pakistanis to go after the terrorists on their side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

I will measure the president's plan and the testimony that will be presented before the Foreign Relations Committee on the basis of these principles, and based on that, I will make a final assessment of the plan.

As always, our thoughts and prayers are with our troops currently serving in harm's way."

I do not support the president's decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won't be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.

The President has inherited a god awful mess and has no good options available. I hope his policy succeeds, and I know our troops - who have sacrificed so much already - will give everything they've got to make it work, but there are huge obstacles that stand in the way. We can have the most carefully thought out policy in the world, but if we do not have the tools on the ground, the odds for success are stacked against us. And right now, the only tools available to us are the Pakistani government and the Karzai government in Afghanistan. Both are incredibly weak reeds to lean on.

We also face the question of how we will pay for the endeavor. The cost of conducting the campaign in Afghanistan could approach $90 billion this year and we're told a long-term, multi-year commitment is necessary for success. That could cost anywhere from $500 billion to $900 billion over the next decade, which could devour our ability to pay for the actions necessary to rebuild our own economy. We simply cannot afford to shortchange the crucial investments we need in education, job training, healthcare, and energy independence. The biggest threat to our long-term national security is a stunted economy.

If this endeavor is to be pursued, we must have a renewed sense of shared sacrifice - because right now only military families are paying the cost of this war. A progressive war surtax is the fairest way to pay for it - fairest to working class families and fairest to military families.

I support the President's mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaeda.

What I would have preferred to hear from the President is how he will bring our forces home within the next year. I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues - like our economy - to deal with in this country. The U.S. government is already spending $3.6 billion a month on the war in Afghanistan. Sending an additional 30,000 troops will cost an extra $30 billion a year, which works out to roughly $1 million per soldier or Marine. The people who are complaining about the cost of health care reform should be more concerned about how much we are continuing to spend on these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree with President Obama that it would be a setback for democracy and stability if the Taliban regained power, but I have serious concerns.

First, why are American taxpayers and our brave soldiers bearing almost all the burden in what should be an international effort? Where are Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world? Second, why in the midst of a severe recession - with 17 percent of our people unemployed or under-employed and one out of four kids on food stamps - are we going to be spending $100 billion a year on Afghanistan when we have so many pressing needs at home? Third, I worry about how we can forge a dependable partnership with an Afghan government that is ineffective and corrupt.

My nightmare is that we may get caught in a quagmire situation from which there will be no successful exit.

President Obama inherited a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan because the Bush Administration did not have a plan to get the job done.

Tonight, the President articulated a way out of this war with the mission of defeating Al Qaeda and preventing terrorists from using Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe havens to again launch attacks against the United States and our allies. The President has offered President Karzai a chance to prove that he is a reliable partner. The American people and the Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy.

Our troops in Afghanistan and around the world have performed excellently; they have done everything that has been asked of them. As always, we are grateful and respectful of the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and their families, have made.