Feingold op-ed on Afghanistan War

In today’s USA Today, Sen. Russ Feingold offers his opinion on the need for a flexible timetable for drawing down U.S. military forces in Afghanistan:

Another view: Set flexible timetable

It’s time to consider ending our massive military presence.

By Russ Feingold

President Obama recognizes that the failed policies of the previous administration — particularly the war in Iraq — hurt our national security. Though the president has rightly focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda, sending more troops to Afghanistan is not the solution. We have already doubled our military presence in Afghanistan over the past year. A larger presence there will not help eliminate al-Qaeda’s haven in Pakistan, and it could actually hurt our efforts to go after al-Qaeda globally.

The decision to go to war in Afghanistan after 9/11 was the right one. But after eight years of war, it is time to consider bringing our massive, open-ended military presence there to an end. Our focus in the region must be on Pakistan, where al-Qaeda’s leadership remains, along with the leadership of the Taliban. Pakistan presents a dangerous mix of militancy, radicalism, poor government and nuclear weapons. Escalating our presence in Afghanistan could push militants across the border, further undermining stability and emboldening our enemies in Pakistan.

We need a global strategy that denies al-Qaeda safe haven everywhere, not just in Afghanistan but also in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. It doesn’t make sense to devote billions more dollars and tens of thousands more troops to a strategy that is so heavily concentrated on Afghanistan when the terrorist threat we face is global.

Moreover, sending more troops to Afghanistan won’t solve the problems in that country — particularly an ineffective, corrupt government — that have allowed the Taliban to flourish. By the end of this year, we will have spent more than $50 billion in Afghanistan and have lost more brave American service members there than in any previous year. That is too heavy a price, for too uncertain a return. We need to set realistic goals, providing civilian assistance to legitimate actors within the Afghan and Pakistani governments while maintaining a capability to disrupt any al-Qaeda footholds.

Rather than doubling down on a strategy with objectives that could be unachievable, we should announce a flexible timetable to draw down our forces from Afghanistan. A timetable would defuse the perception that we are occupying that country, and help ensure that our presence does not fuel militancy and instability in the region.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.

Share:

Related Articles

4 thoughts on “Feingold op-ed on Afghanistan War

  1. This is one of those times I disagree with Sen. Feingold.

    We should have learned our lesson about militarily defeating an enemy and then abandoning the populace in World War I. We can actually measure the success of the Marshall Plan after World War II. And now, like some ugly American, we ask ourselves ‘what is in it for us?’.

    Well, all I can say is that we should remember that a corrupt government cannot reform itself. Indeed it will actively prevent that from happening. We also have evidence of what happens in Afghanistan and other countries when we abandon the sincere, the moral, and the genuine populace to the ravages of corruption.

    The goals for stabilizing Afghanistan are the same as for Iraq:

    1. Physical safety of citizens.
    2. Infrastructure to provide food, shelter, water, and electricity.
    3. Develop the economy.
    4. Establish a stable political environment.

    Our mission is not complete until this is done.

    1. The goals for stabilizing Afghanistan are the same as for Iraq:

      1. Physical safety of citizens.
      2. Infrastructure to provide food, shelter, water, and electricity.
      3. Develop the economy.
      4. Establish a stable political environment.

      Yeah, those goals worked out well for the British and the Soviets in Afghanistan.

      1. They had geo-political goals (controlling territory) and not goals to improve Afghanistan.

        The US must destroy a snake nest and establish a garden.

  2. Unfortunately, I think the analogy of the Marshall Plan does not fit well here. The Marshall Plan was implemented in Europe after the war, and was devoted to rebuilding much of Europe’s pre-existing infrastructure that had been ravaged during the war. Compared to Europe, in many parts of Afghanistan does not have any infrastructure as understood in Western eyes, nor a traditional (read: Western) economy. The four points you outlined are all quite laudable, but they’re interconnected and rely on each other for long-term success. Some of the specifics of item #2, especially food and water, are especially difficult because of Afghanistan’s lack of infrastructure and hostile environment. While the goals may be similar, be it for Iraq, the Marshall Plan, or Afghanistan, the intricacies of the location make it a much greater task.

Comments are closed.