Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Presses Administration For Clear Withdrawal Plan From Afghanistan

First Posted: 03/15/11 07:25 AM Updated: 03/15/11 07:25 AM

WASHINGTON -- While President Obama has said that U.S. combat forces will begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011 and be fully out by 2014, the pace of that withdrawal is still up in the air. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is now pressing the administration for a clear redeployment plan so that the American public receives a degree of certainty regarding how much longer the war will last. Her announcement comes on the same day that Gen. David Petraeus will be testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which Gillibrand is a member.

Gillibrand is calling for passage of the Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act, which would put Congress' backing behind the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces beginning on July 1. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and four other senators, would also require Obama to submit a plan to Congress by July 31 for the phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces, including a completion day.

“America cannot afford an endless war in Afghanistan,” Gillibrand said. “After nearly a decade at war, with still no equal commitment from the Karzai government, and after all the lives we’ve sacrificed and the billions we’ve spent on this war, it’s time to start bringing our troops home. It’s time to put the future and security of Afghanistan in the hands of its own leaders, and focus America’s national security on the emerging and more imminent threats from al Qaeda in other regions.”

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post, Gillibrand also requests a Strategic Redeployment Agreement to establish a 2014 end date for combat operations, based on the model used for pull-out from Iraq.

"I am writing out of consideration for our changing national security challenges, my deep concern about the toll that the war in Afghanistan is taking on our troops and our country, and recognition of [the fact] that the Afghan and Pakistani governments are not taking steps critical to the war effort," she writes in the letter. "I believe a clear combat redeployment agreement would help our efforts in Afghanistan by reinforcing Afghan sovereignty and protecting both the readiness and the flexibility we need to meet the full array of global security challenges that confront our country."

She also raises doubts as to whether the United States is meeting the goals in its three core elements of strategy for Afghanistan that Petraeus has identified, which include "a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan." Gillibrand cites widespread corruption in Afghanistan, possible "serious domestic instability" and the safe havens for terrorists that remain along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Gillibrand is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, as many critics of the war would like to see. But her plan would force the administration to lay out a concrete timeline, which it so far has not done, and officials would then be held accountable for upholding said timeline in the next few years.

Despite officials pointing to 2014 as the targeted end of combat operations, Gates has said that U.S. troops will most likely remain in Afghanistan beyond that date.

"I would say that if the Afghan people and the Afghan government are interested in an ongoing security relationship and some sort of an ongoing security presence -- with the permission of the Afghan government -- the United States, I think, is open to the possibility of having some presence here in terms of training and assistance, perhaps making use of facilities made available to us by the Afghan government for those purposes," said Gates on a recent trip to Afghanistan.

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who also recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, said that military commanders there told him they expect U.S. troops to be in the country for another 8-10 years.

On Monday, Obama sat down with Gates and Petraeus in a meeting that was closed to reporters and discussed the plan to begin withdrawal in July. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is expected to make an announcement on March 21 regarding the transition of leading security operations to Afghan forces.

A recent poll by Rasmussen found that a majority of likely voters want the U.S. government to set a timetable to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan within one year. Within that group, 31 percent want troops to come home immediately. In September 2010, just 43 percent of likely voters wanted a one-year timeline.

American taxpayers have spent $336 billion to fund the war and another $11 billion for assistance in Afghanistan, with approximately $124 billion more expected to be approved by Congress.

Gillibrand's full letter to Clinton and Gates:

Dear Secretaries Clinton and Gates,

It is my strong view that it is time to negotiate a Strategic Redeployment Agreement with Afghanistan that would mandate a date certain for the withdrawal of all United States combat forces no later than 2014. I am writing out of consideration for our changing national security challenges, my deep concern about the toll that the war in Afghanistan is taking on our troops and our country, and recognition of [the fact] that the Afghan and Pakistani governments are not taking steps critical to the war effort. I believe a clear combat redeployment agreement would help our efforts in Afghanistan by reinforcing Afghan sovereignty and protecting both the readiness and the flexibility we need to meet the full array of global security challenges that confront our country.

I have great confidence in the ability of our troops and the strategic focus of our commanders. The surge in Afghanistan has accomplished some substantial military gains. However, as the President has said, in laying out the strategy for Afghanistan, there are “three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.” Despite our civilian assistance, corruption in Afghanistan remains rife. As the near-collapse of Kabul Bank has demonstrated, corruption undermines Afghanistan’s stability and the support of its people for their government. Without a strong, stable, and effective Afghan government, we risk serious domestic instability that opens the door to a return to control by the Taliban and related organizations of major parts of the country despite a U.S. military commitment. As for Pakistan, while I applaud the sacrifices Pakistan’s military has made in fighting some insurgent groups, al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, and others continue to enjoy safe havens inside Pakistan, near the Pakistani-Afghan border, allowing them to resupply and direct the war in Afghanistan. Insufficient dedication from Kabul and Islamabad undermines our military investment in Afghanistan.

I am also concerned that the drain on our resources in Afghanistan may deteriorate our flexibility to address other global threats. In the past few months, upheavals in the Middle East have posed new challenges for our government as a whole, including the military. Yet, our flexibility of response appears to be compromised in part by our ongoing military involvement in two other Muslim majority countries. Top U.S. intelligence officials have said that Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula is a greater national security challenge than bin Laden. And al Qaeda’s reach appears to be increasingly global – spreading ideology and seeking recruits via the Internet and other methods - not limited to specific contests like the one in Afghanistan. U.S. strategy for countering terrorism needs to be far more nimble, innovative, and global than the troop-heavy counter-insurgency.

What I am suggesting is not to spell out every stage of U.S. troop redeployment from Afghanistan – specific redeployment decisions should be up to commanders on the ground and avoid giving the enemy a potential propaganda tool. Nor should we change the protection for our troops and flexibility for our mission that has been agreed in the U.S.-Afghanistan diplomatic notes exchange and the ISAF-Afghanistan Military Technical Agreement. I do not believe that a withdrawal agreement must necessarily limit our training or counter-terrorism missions, or protection for our civilian development programs. It is critical, however, that we provide for a date certain for withdrawal of our combat forces, in order to give certainty to the American people; to ensure maximum flexibility in responding to other contingencies; and to publicly endorse the Afghan Government’s assumption of lead responsibility as planned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/gillibrand-afghanistan_n_835739.html?view=print

Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting

By Scott Wilson and Jon Cohen, Tuesday, March 15, 12:20 AM

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting, the highest proportion yet opposed to the conflict, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The finding signals a growing challenge for President Obama as he decides how quickly to pull U.S. forces from the country beginning this summer. After nearly a decade of conflict, political opposition to the battle breaks sharply along partisan lines, with only 19 percent of Democratic respondents and half of Republicans surveyed saying the war continues to be worth fighting.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say Obama should withdraw a “substantial number” of combat troops from Afghanistan this summer, the deadline he set to begin pulling out some forces. Only 39 percent of respondents, however, say they expect him to withdraw large numbers.

The Post-ABC News poll results come as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, prepares to testify before Congress on Tuesday about the course of the war. He is expected to face tough questioning about a conflict that is increasingly unpopular among a broad cross section of Americans.

Petraeus will tell Congress that “things are progressing very well,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Monday. But because of battlefield gains made by U.S. and coalition forces since last year, Morrell told MSNBC, “it’s going to be heavy and intensive in terms of fighting” once the winter cold passes.

The poll began asking only in 2007 whether the Afghan war is worth fighting, but support has almost certainly never been as low as it is in the most recent survey.

The growing opposition pre­sents Obama with a difficult political challenge ahead of his 2012 reelection effort, especially in his pursuit of independent voters.

Since Democrats took a beating in last year’s midterm elections, Obama has appealed to independents with a middle-of-the-road approach to George W. Bush-era tax cuts and budget negotiations with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. He called a news conference last week to express concern about rising gasoline prices, an economically pressing issue for many independent voters.

But his approach to the Afghan war has not won over the independents or liberal Democrats who propelled his campaign two years ago, and the most recent Post-ABC News poll reinforces the importance of Republicans as the chief constituency supporting his strategy. The results suggest that the war will be an awkward issue for the president as he looks for ways to end it. Nearly 1,500 U.S. troops have died since the fighting began in 2001.

During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised to withdraw American forces from the Iraq war, which he opposed, and devote more resources to the flagging effort in Afghanistan, which he has called an essential front in combating Islamist terrorism targeting the United States.

After a months-long strategy review in the fall of 2009, he announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan — taking the total to more than 100,000 — and a July 2011 deadline for the start of their withdrawal.

The number of respondents to the Post-ABC News poll who say the war is not worth fighting has risen from 44 percent in late 2009 to 64 percent in the survey conducted last week.

Two-thirds of independents hold that position, according to the poll, and nearly 80 percent said Obama should withdraw a “substantial number” of troops from Afghanistan this summer. Barely more than a quarter of independents say the war is worth its costs, and for the first time a majority feel “strongly” that it is not.

Obama, who met with Pe­traeus on Monday at the White House, has said he will determine the pace of the withdrawal by assessing conditions on the ground.

At the same time, U.S. and NATO forces have come under sharp criticism from the Afghan government. Over the weekend, after a NATO bombing killed nine children, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that international troops “stop their operations in our land,” a more pointed call than previous ones he has made following such deadly NATO mistakes.

The telephone poll was conducted March 10 to 13 among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The survey also asked respondents to assess Obama’s performance in managing the political changes sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa. Overall, 45 percent of respondents approve of his handling of the situation, and 44 percent disapprove.

In Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi is battling a rebel force seeking to end his 41-year rule, Obama is under increasing pressure to implement a no-fly zone over the country to prevent the Libyan leader from taking back lost territory and to protect civilians from government reprisals.

Nearly six in 10 Americans say they would support U.S. participation in a no-fly zone over Libya, the poll found, despite recent warnings from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that doing so would be a “major operation.”

But the survey found that American support dips under 50 percent when it comes to unilateral U.S. action, as Democrats and independents peel away.

When told that such a mission would entail U.S. warplanes bombing Libyan antiaircraft positions and “continuous patrols,” about a quarter of those initially advocating U.S. participation turn into opponents.

After a meeting Monday with Danish Prime Minister Lars Loek­ke Rasmussen, Obama said, “We will be continuing to coordinate closely both through NATO as well as the United Nations and other international fora to look at every single option that’s available to us in bringing about a better outcome for the Libyan people.”

In general, Americans do not think thatthe changes in the Middle East and North Africa will prove beneficial to U.S. economic and security interests.

More than seven in 10 respondents said demonstrators are interested in building new governments, although not necessarily democratic ones. Almost half of those surveyed view the turmoil as undermining the United States’ ability to fight terrorist groups in the region.

wilsons@washpost.com

cohenj@washpost.com

Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/poll-nearly-two-thirds-of-americans-say-afghan-war-isnt-worth-fighting/2011/03/14/ABRbeEW_print.html

All in a Month’s Work- Crashing BofA, Drawing Beck’s Ire & Shaming Corporate Tax Dodgers

Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 08:00 AM EDT

Open your wallet. Take out a dollar bill, and feel it between your fingers. That thin piece of paper is more than Bank of America, Citigroup, Verizon and Boeing all paid in income taxes last year, combined.

Read on below the fold if you know that's just plain wrong, and if it makes you downright angry.

One month ago to the date, I was intrigued by an article my dad emailed to me with the subject line, “This looks right up your alley.”  That article was “How to Build a Progressive Tea Party” by Johann Hari, describing the rising UK Uncut movement that holds tax dodgers’ feet to the fire across the pond.  The implication was that we should do the same in the United States.

Little did my dad know that just 2 weeks later, we would hold events in 50 cities around the country with 2,000+ activists hitting Bank of America storefronts to protest the fact that they made $4.4 Billion in profits while paying $0 in taxes. We took to the streets to tell the people directly that if this one corporation alone paid their fair share, we could ‘uncut’ $1.7 Billion in early childhood education (Head Start & Title I).  Activists came, direct actions were held, and we persuaded the people.

The message is magnetic and it spreads like populist wildfire.  Everyone agrees.  We win.

Our message is a simple one- before you fire one more teacher, before you take one more police officer off the streets, before you close down one more fire station, before you sacrifice one more decent public servant upon the altar of deficit reduction, our political leaders have an obligation to make sure corporations are paying their fair share in taxes like the rest of us.

Right now, we're missing out on up to $100 billion per year in corporate tax revenue because of offshore tax haven abuse- that's $1 trillion each decade. Bank of America alone uses 115 tropical tax havens to hide their profits. Instead of Congress cutting higher education to the tune of $100 Billion this year (Pell Grants) or cutting low-income heating assistance for poor families, Congress could simply pass legislation that makes offshore tax havens illegal (see: Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act).

At the first BofA investors' conference in 3 years, US Uncut NYC found a way inside and called out a roomful of millionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers and bank executives to their faces. Glenn Beck has twice set aside time on his show to call us Marxists/Communists/Socialists who want to "end capitalism as we know it."  All we are saying, Mr. Beck, is that “we pay our taxes, why don’t they?”  Where’s the comrade in that, psychopath?

The media has begun calling us the ‘progressive tea party’.  Well, that’s handy for the attention span of the 24-hour news cycle, but let’s be clear about a few things.  First, we have no billionaires funding our movement, nor a bank account for that matter (your money’s no good here, only your capacity for action).  This ain’t Astroturf funded by oil executives busing us around the country along with a major cable news network providing free national publicity – this is grassroots pure and simple – by the people, for the people, and of the people (the way it should be).  Lastly, US Uncut is focused on action, and like the tea party, we prefer direct action in full view of the public instead of clicktivism and online petitions (you know who you are).  This is truly a people-powered movement, its showing no sign of slowing down, and we shall be heard.

US Uncut's message isn't one that endorses any specific candidates for office, or any major political party- we are a united group of citizens who believe its wrong to make the other 98% of us foot the bill for the greediest 2%. We're fighting for teachers, for police officers, firefighters, libraries, students, the unemployed, and everyone who has been victimized by corporate greed and a complicit government's manufactured budget crisis.

Our next global day of action is Saturday, March 26th. Uncut movements in France, Netherlands, Sudan, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Switzerland will be joining UK Uncut and US Uncut as we take to the streets to fight the most egregious corporate tax dodgers. Can we all shake off the chains of complicity and stand in solidarity for one cause, worldwide?

Wouldn't it be great if our legislators and the talking heads on TV all stopped their chatter about "spreading the pain around" and "shared sacrifice," and instead filled the airwaves with populist language that appeals to the rest of us? Perhaps another month from now, liberal and conservative pundits will capitalize on middle-class anger and use language like, "they caused this crisis- make them pay for it" or "this isn't a spending problem, its a revenue problem."

Wouldn't it be great if the geriatric rednecks sitting in red, white & blue lawn chairs while holding "STOP THE SPENDING, SUPER SECRET TERRORIST MUSLIM OBAMA" signs were replaced in the media? In another month's time, we might see scads of slightly younger folks along with ‘soccer moms’ and disabled veterans all standing together, waving flags, and holding signs like "CHOP FROM THE TOP – BANK OF AMERICA IS BAD FOR AMERICA!"

What if the progressive message of corporate accountability dominated the media coverage on Tax Day this year, instead of Fox News tea party rallies at the national mall? What if 10,000 people descended on Washington, D.C. on April 18th for a rally focused on egregious corporate tax dodgers and how their greed directly hurts We the People? What if these progressives presented a one-page bill to Congress that made it illegal to hide profits overseas, demanded action, and dared them to pass it?

This is our time to change the debate for once. This is our time to put aside our nitpicking and our petty ideological differences to stand together and demand our leaders act on this grave injustice that impacts us all.  This is our time for direct and meaningful action.

Instead of banks rewarding themselves with bonuses that could solve every state budget crisis and lower the unemployment rate by 4 percentage points, what if banks were all collectively forced to pay billions back to Uncle Sam for all those years of tax dodging? If we all stood together, united in this one cause and refused to relent until our leaders gave in and corporations finally paid up, we would quickly triumph.

Aren't you tired of wondering why the President we worked so hard to elect hasn't led a movement to drive a stake through the heart of the US Chamber of Commerce? Aren't you tired of clicking endless petitions to be sent to Congressmen already bought and paid for by Wall Street and K Street? Aren't you ready to finally be seen and be heard out in the streets, where we can't be ignored?

US Uncut is. Take a stand with us, and go to usuncut.org to find everything you need to get started.

The momentum is finally on our side.  Let's get to work.  #Winning

The revolution will be tweeted, liked, & shared.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/15/956508/-All-in-a-Month%E2%80%99s-WorkCrashing-BofA,-Drawing-Beck%E2%80%99s-IreShaming-Corporate-Tax-Dodgers-