Progressive Caucus Report on Afghanistan

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has released a set of recommendations based on its series of forums on Afghanistan--the sixth and last of which will be held Wednesday. It's releasing the report now so its membership may consider it in deciding how to vote on the $96 billion War Supplemental this week.

Here is a preview of just a few of the valuable recommendations in the report:

"Require an 80-20 ratio (political-military) with all future US funding, with a special inspector general to monitor the implementation of this ratio."

Even Gen. Petraeus calls for this 80-20 ratio in his counterinsurgency strategy, but a panelist on the Afghanistan Forum, Gen. Paul Eaton, former commander of Iraq's security forces,pointed out that funding in Afghanistan is 90 percent military.

"Require the immediate cessation of drone attacks."

Many of the panelists, including Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson--Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff -- pointed out that the high number of civilian deaths from drone attacks creates more enemies and fuels the insurgency rather than undermining it.

"Require UN involvement in overseeing and mandating the role of US and international military operations.... Require any increase in US troop presence is oriented to training and support roles for Afghan security forces...not for US-led counterinsurgency efforts."

The report reads, "17,000 additional troops are neither sufficient to manage the conflict nor a useful contribution because the already deployed US/international forces are not being presently utilized." It is worth noting that the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy calls for upwards of 400,000 troops. Col. Wilkerson recommended the support/training role of any additional troops.

"Require the initiative of a dialogue process, with Saudi Arabia--who initiated previous talks between Afghan government and ethnic/tribal leaders--taking the lead, or with other international organization taking the lead."

Its clear that the insurgency will not be defeated and security not achieved until ethnic and tribal leaders are brought into the fold.

While I personally would like to see a call for immediate withdrawal of US troops, and a sharp and smart focus on diplomatic and political solutions to the conflict, these recommendations would improve the current strategy of escalation that destabilizes the region and threatens President Obama's domestic and international agenda. Kudos to the Progressive Caucus for setting up these forums, listening to people with a deep understanding of the issues, and putting forth recommendations in a timely manner.

Comments (27)

1. I don't understand how having the UN oversee aspects of the military/political execution would help, if the base problem is that the Afghanis and Pakistanis, in particular the Pashtuns, perceive the American presence as an invasion. The UN is just as alien and foreign an entity to these people, I believe, as is the US. A lot of these people don't even want to accept the presence of their own governments' soldiers and agencies on their land.

   Posted by syfriendly at 05/12/2009 @ 4:40pm

2. "Require the immediate cessation of drone attacks

   By all means Katrina, stop the best resource we have for penetrating Al Qaeda and Taleban strongholds that event the Pakistani army won't venture into.

   As with nearly all "progressive" military/foreign policy recommendations, this one should quickly find it's way appropriately into the round file.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:30pm

3. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:30pm

   I disagree. In counter insurgency warfare the primary battle is for the will of the people. The attacks by drones is seen as both cowardly and callous, especially when we bomb the wrong targets (wedding parties). As long as we continue methods that while moderately effective, serve to undermine the local support of our goals we dont have a chance in hell of winning. The only way to win, is to change attitudes toward us. We cannot win in Afghanistan through military might. We need to focus our efforts on gaining the support of the people and local warlords. Drone attacks while successful at killing a few Taliban here and there really only serve to cement the will of the people against us. Creating more recruits to our enemys cause.

   If we could insure that drone attacks would be successful against high value targets, they may be appropriate, but if all we end up doing is taking out a handful of low level taliban and civilians, then it is counter productive.

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/12/2009 @ 7:17pm

4. Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 6:46pm

   Actually, snow, according to Larry's theory of "murder" and "war"...

   we're not really PLANNING on killing anybody, civilian OR Al Qaeda. If we were, it'd be murder.

   What we're doing is "planning on defeating the enemy and unless they surrender to us" it's sort of an "unplanned by-product" that people get killed.

   (Here's where he says "I'm twisting his words" and then two or three posted answers later proves me right!)

   Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 7:18pm

5. I DO wish they'd at least TRY to do a better job of avoiding civ casualties when using them though (I know, I know...it's war...grrr).

   Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 6:46pm

   In that last supposed incident that they claimed killed many civilians; they found that the Taleban first held the civilians hostage and then killed them, many by grenade to blame the US. this is a common tactic by jihadists.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:28pm

6. "Require the immediate cessation of drone attacks"

   By all means Katrina, stop the best resource we have for penetrating Al Qaeda and Taleban strongholds that event the Pakistani army won't venture into.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 6:30pm

   "60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda men, 687 civilians

   Friday, April 10, 2009

   By Amir Mir

   LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent."

   •••••

   6%?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 7:50pm

7. Taleban fighters have been using deadly white phosphorus munitions, some of them manufactured in Britain, to attack Western forces in Afghanistan, according to previously classified United States documents released yesterday.

   White phosphorus, which can burn its victims down to the bone, has been found in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in regions across Afghanistan including in the south, where British troops are based. It has also been used in mortar and rocket attacks on American forces.

   •••

   willie pete?

   now, where did they ever come up with such a nasty idea?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 7:52pm

8. I think it's "Whiskey", as in military-speak for 'W, but yeah...smells 'just like the IDF brand'.

   Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 7:58pm

   actually,

   fallujah predates that.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2009 @ 8:04pm

9. Seems like the 80-20 mandate is the proactive dealbreaker... with no reasonable expectation that complex foreign policy can be restricted as such. This is another clever, progressive symbolic idea, however. It underlines many things. 1- That the absence of such an overt, conscious effort of balance was central to all that went wrong in Iraq, 2- Demonstrates to the Afghan people that our main focus is on the building blocks of peace, and 3- that we don't want to win win win if it means destroying their society and culture.

   Posted by winyahn at 05/12/2009 @ 8:05pm

10. I DO wish they'd at least TRY to do a better job of avoiding civ casualties when using them though (I know, I know...it's war...grrr).

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/12/2009 @ 6:46pm

    In that last supposed incident that they claimed killed many civilians; they found that the Taleban first held the civilians hostage and then killed them, many by grenade to blame the US. this is a common tactic by jihadists.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Drones are highly ineffective in 'distinguishing' by their very nature, but they sure as hell as scary. They are meant to terrorize. Without confirmed kills, the fear factor tends to subside. Their use is governed by acceptable collateral damage standards, subject to change by executive order.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 8:35pm

11. I've been responding to mockery of the 80-20 funding requirement by saying that the war is still being run off FY 2008 funds appropriated under Bush, and thus already allocated to his specifications, which would definitely fit in with the current 90% of the funds going to the military effort. Can anyone tell me if I'm right about this at all, or do I not know what the hell I'm talking about?

    Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 8:52pm

12. 'For his part, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., fumed in a March interview with National Journal: "The administration is running two sets of books here.... There are two sets of books, and one is not subject to the budget controls." Appropriators, however, have used supplemental spending bills to their advantage, and they defend the current practice of separating the war money. "It gives people a picture of what the war actually costs," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., told NJ. Experts have found that the Bush administration's supplemental spending requests have been designating an increasing number of Pentagon programs as "emergencies" -- thus freeing them from budget restraints -- when in reality the programs are needed for day-to-day defense activities. According to the CRS, the Pentagon requested $782 million for research and development in the supplemental now pending before Congress. "It is unusual for [R&D] funds to be provided in emergency supplementals, because of the long-term nature of the work," the CRS said, adding that the administration failed to provide sufficient background details to justify calling the funds "emergency" spending. On the Hill, appropriators have gone along -- and then some -- with the scheme of attaching routine defense spending to supplemental spending bills in recent years. The tactic takes some of the pressure off appropriators, allowing them to dish out more money to nondefense programs while appearing to stay within tight budget caps.'

    Reliance on supplemental funding draws bipartisan attack By David Baumann National Journal April 21, 2006

    Government Executive.com

    Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 9:09pm

13. Posted by OneVote at 05/12/2009 @ 9:09pm

    Isn't Obama including the war funding in his budget proposals from now on?

    Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 10:21pm

14. Posted by antisocialist at 05/12/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i like to follow chains of causation. islamic extremist groups pick a fight with the US and the west. yeah, i know, the US and the west have done bad things, but thats part of being human and nobody's immune to that.

    the US responds by fighting back. islamic extremists than hide amongst civilians, often using them as human shields, or commiting acts as described by you.

    so...who are the bad guys?

    those who pick fights and hide behind civilians or those who fight back? are the civilian deaths the fault of us for responding to the aggresion of our foes? in areas where the taliban/al qaeda are supported heavily by the local populace, do not many of the civilian populace bear some responsibility?

    so lets get out of there in a year. lets train and support a national afghan army, negotiate with those with whom we can negotiate, get the hell out, and if they go back to their old ways, return from time to time (not to stay, oh no) with overwhelming force and destroy those who actively work to harm us.

    but do not stick around...

    ironically i think such a long term policy would be more compassionate to our enemies and those who suffer under their tyranny, would result in less loss of life, guiltyu or innocent, and be far more cost effective.

    might even be more effective overall. the world may always need anarchic hellholes which serve as magnets for the worst humanity vomits up. also makes a convenient target as opposed to dispersed terrorism...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 08:01am

15. Isn't Obama including the war funding in his budget proposals from now on?

    Posted by zmann at 05/12/2009 @ 10:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No....it doesn't look like it. Still using supplemental process.

    Here is an interesting read on the subject.

    Obama's War Budget JEFF LEYS Counterpunch Tuesday, May 5, 2009

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-war-budget.html

    Highlights -

    'At first glance, it is easy to conclude that the proposed 22 percent reduction in war spending from 2008 to 2009 represents a significant shift in war strategy and is indicative of a drawing down of the twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, such a conclusion would be wrong'

    'This discussion [referenced article above]includes total war funding for 2009, including both that amount appropriated by the Democrat-controlled Congress last June and the amount being requested by Obama in the currently pending supplemental spending request. It should be noted that the war funds approved by Congress last year were contained in the bill crafted by the Democratic Party leadership.'

    I am guessing that Dems aren't going to attempt to mess with any unspent 2008 supplemental - and once appropriated, it appears that it could only be significantly modified by Congress and not the executive branch, since Congress has to sign off on it. These appropriations, as you can see, may be somewhat discretionary within DOD departments (which are under direction of executive branch) to which they are appropriated, but the gravy train of defense contracting and political payoff likely has a lockhold.

    Issues like aid to Israel included in the supplemental war funding are of course off limits.

    Shifting prior appropriations from DOD to state department is doubtful.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 09:44am

16. 'An entirely new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund is created with Obama's supplemental and will initially be funded with $400 million for this fiscal year (which notably ends on September 30). Spending on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund account for a $3.3 billion increase in war funds.'

    cite to article above.

    This seems to indicate that new direction or strategy funding must come from upcoming supplemental requests subject to approval of Congress - though not necessarily.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 10:04am

17. Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 09:44am

    What I meant was in his own budget proposals. If I'm not mistaken, we're still in Bush's FY 2008, right? Does Obama's FY 2009 and beyond budgets include war funding in them?

    Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 10:35am

18. Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 10:35am | ignore this person | warn this person

    The 2008 fiscal year ended Sept. 2008, but as I understand it, supplemental requests are funding one year in advance. For instance, FY 2008 supplemental wasn't approved till June 2008. FY 2009 supplemental likely won't be approved before this upcoming Memorial Day weekend. FY 2010 begins October 1, 2009. BO, as per the article cited, has requested $130 billion for war spending for FY 2010.

    The war spending appropriation is theoretically accomplished via supplemental (emergency) funding, but the reality is that normal defense budgeting and supplemental war budgeting has become a shell game. As per the Counterpunch article, war spending is included in BO's normal defense budget appropriation request, though not labeled as such. FY 2009 Supplemental reportedly $145 billion (still pending, anticipated to be higher) and for FY 2010 it is $130 billion (haha). See article below for 2010 also under consideration.

    '(AP) President Barack Obama's proposed defense budget includes $130 billion for the nation's two wars, a figure that may not be enough.

    And his Democratic allies in Congress are threatening to set conditions that must be met before that money is handed out.

    Obama sent to Congress Thursday details of his proposed $664 billion Pentagon spending plan for the budget year starting in October. It includes $534 billion for base defense programs and $130 billion for overseas operations, including the wars he's ramping down in Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan'

    Obama Budget Allocates $130 Billion For 2 Wars Obama's Defense Budget Includes $130 Billion For 2 Wars, But It May Not Be Enough

    WASHINGTON, May. 7, 2009 - CBSNews.com

    Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 11:59am

19. Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 08:01am

    Dear ibbleblibble, Let me use most of your words, but change the situation. ibbleblibble's original words are in quotes.

    "i like to follow chains of causation." right wing "extremist groups pick a fight with the US" by bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City. "yeah, i know, the US and the west have done bad things, but thats [sic] part of being human and nobody's immune to that."

    "the US responds by" cluster bombing Northern Idaho. right wing "extremists than [sic] hide amongst civilians, often using them as human shields," etc.

    "so...who are the bad guys? "

    What I am trying to point out is that if you make the aggressor an American citizen and a US state - that happens to harbor many citizens who are sympathetic to the motivations of the Oklahoma City bombers - the recipient of an extremely disproportionate reaction, the violent irrational behavior of some of that state's more radical citizens, though reprehensible, can still be understood as being due in some part to the actions of the government's aggression. At least I think some of the more right leaning commentators here might feel a little bit of empathy for the Idaho righties who are being assailed by the evil lefty state in my fable. Now, what is so different about what is going on with the Taliban in reaction to the disproportionate aggression of the United States?

    Posted by raaustin at 05/13/2009 @ 12:13pm

20. Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 11:59am

    So then we are in FY 2009, which still was planned under Bush, and Obama is including war funding in his own budgets, but may ask for more. Thanks.

    Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 12:14pm

21. ========================

    parveen =========================

    <a href="http://www.drug-rehab-center.org/Alaska.htm"> Alaska Drug Rehab Centers and Programs </a>-

    Posted by bachan1 at 05/13/2009 @ 12:59pm

22. Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Do note that:

    Politico Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war By: David Rogers January 23, 2008 08:03 PM EST

    'The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year's funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

    The decision reverses the administration's stance of just a year ago, when President Bush's budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008. By comparison, the new budget, to be unveiled Feb. 4, requests only incremental "bridge" funding into 2009 and won't sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009.

    In confirming the decision, the White House refused to say precisely how much bridge funding will be requested for Iraq and Afghanistan in the new budget. But Republican and Democratic staffers in Congress predicted it would be between $70 billion and $80 billion -- less than half the annual spending in recent years'

    Not clear if FY 2008 Supplemental under Dem Congress and Bush resolved the 'bridge funding' supplemental shortfall into 2009 as to its sufficiency to carry through fiscal year end September 30, 2009.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 1:30pm

23. Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 1:30pm

    It's funny how conservatives can't even fully fund a pet war.

    Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 3:07pm

24. Taliban wants 'new world order'

    Zardari, right, said that the Taliban 'wants to change the way of life of the world' [EPA]

    Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, has said that his country's fight against the Taliban is not just a domestic battle but one that the whole world needs to be wary of.

    Speaking during a news conference in London with Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, Zardari said the Taliban are seeking to create a "new world order" and that more effort was needed by the international communty to defeat the fighters.

    Standing alongside Brown, Zardari said: "It [the Taliban's cause] is a long-term endeavour and we are both united to fight against this endeavour which is challenging our way of life and wants to change the way of life of the world."

    The president's comments came as the Taliban in Pakistan warned politicians from the Swat valley that they and their families will be attacked unless they quit their posts in protest against the continuing army offensive in the troubled region.

    http://tinyurl.com/pq253j

    interesting stuff...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 4:14pm

25. It's funny how conservatives can't even fully fund a pet war.

    Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes - 'always' the fiscal conservatives...lol

    Posted by OneVote at 05/13/2009 @ 7:13pm

26. (Here's where he says "I'm twisting his words" and then two or three posted answers later proves me right!)

    Posted by Mask at 05/12/2009 @ 7:18pm

    Put another way, it ain't murder if you're doing it for God and country, it's only murder if the other side is doing it for the wrong god and the wrong country.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 3:57pm

27. Katrina, What I don't understand is why we keep so many troops in Iraq. Iraq wants us out of Iraq and we can't afford to keep military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and foot the bill for Pakistan to take on the Taliban on their home turf. Why do we Americans have to foot the bill for removing all of the worlds tyrants?

    Arm the people of Afghanistan and let them kick the crap out of the Taliban themselves.

    It still seems apparent that the only reason we're keeping troops in Iraq is because Iraq has oil. Otherwise, we'd be outta there like Republicans fleeing an IRS audit.

    As Naomi Klein has pointed out, the Shock Doctrine is presently being applied to this country. What public wealth the U.S. has is being stolen right in front of us and in the meantime we are fighting stupid senseless wars in countries that don't want us there in the first place.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:40pm