TPM LiveWire
Feinstein: Afghanistan Mission 'Is In Serious Jeopardy'
Ben Frumin | October 11, 2009, 11:10AM
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said on ABC's This Week today that the Afghanistan "mission is in serious jeopardy."
Part of the problem, she said, is the corrupt government of President Hamid Karzai. "How do you strengthen Karzai's spine?" Feinstein asked, adding, "If you can."
Referencing a brazen Taliban attack on Pakistani army headquarters, the California Senator said that a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan "will have a dramatic impact on Pakistan one day."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), also appearing on This Week, echoed Feinstein on that count, saying, "you can't delink Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are coupled together."
Chambliss said that "if Afghanistan falls" or "if we pull out," "we know that the neighboring country has the opportunity to be really invaded or encroached upon by bad guys."
So what's to be done? Feinstein said that after eight years of war, she doesn't think the United States can or should stay in Afghanistan for 10 to 12 years. "I don't think the American people are up for that and want that."
"We cannot be everyone's gatekeeper, everyone's policeman," she said.
Feinstein also wondered how President Obama could reject Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional U.S. troops without simply pulling out of Afghanistan.
I don't know how you put somebody in who is as crackerjack as Gen. McChrystal, who gives the President very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations if you're not gonna pullout. If you don't wanna take the recommendations, then you put your people in such jeopardy.
Chambliss reflected on the issue by saying that Obama is "gonna have to" green light McChrystal's request for more troops. "I think the President has got to follow his commanders on the ground," Chambliss said.
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Colbert: 'Sarah Palin Is A F--king Retard' (VIDEO)
- Jon Stewart: Obama's Teleprompter Is No Match For Palin's 'Mavericky Notecard Hand-Scribbled Buzzwords' (VIDEO)
- Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column (VIDEO)
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- At A Whole New Level
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- What's the Deal with The Ryan Budget?
- Backhanded Compliment
- Is Ryan's Social Security Slashing Budget Like Contract With America?
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- Palin Advocates War With Iran After Apparently Misunderstanding Buchanan Column (VIDEO)
- House GOP-ers: Start Over And We'll Come To The Table. White House: No.
- Jon Stewart: Obama's Teleprompter Is No Match For Palin's 'Mavericky Notecard Hand-Scribbled Buzzwords' (VIDEO)
- Bachmann: 'Wean Everybody Off' Social Security And Medicare
- Ben Nelson Helps GOP Block Obama NLRB Nominee
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- Allegations Against Leader Cause Turmoil In CA GOP
- MAY DAY
- Deconstructing Rush Limbaugh
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
FebM
October 11, 2009 11:40 AM
Isn't this all contradictory? If Aghan gov is corrupt and McChrystal is asking American troops to police the country, with more troops regardless, why wouldn't we end up in that country for decades?
Obama is right, If Karzai doesn't have a spine, go with the Taliban, just like we bribed the Sunnis in Iraq to be on our side and chase A'Qaeda we can work with the 'moderate' Taliban. Obama keeps his eye on the ball, we are fighting A'Qaeda not the Taliban majority who are the Pashtuns just like Karzai.
Remember when Obama as the candidate questioned General Patreus and made him define 'success' in Iraq, then turned around and told him, those objects have been met, we can leave Iraq. Thats whats gonna happen for Aghan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
October 11, 2009 11:46 AM
What part of "COMMANDER-in-CHIEF" do Republicans not understand?
No US president should be "following" any general. That's not how our founders set this thing up. The C-in-C LEADS...the generals follow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thespis
October 11, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to ogliberal
Generals do not formulate missions at the highest level, but they are responsible for providing their best thinking about how to carry them out. If the President sets the mission but does not agree with his general about the military means for achieving it, the general should definitely resign so that the President can appoint someone who is on the same page about how to accomplish the objective. Why would Obama want McChrystal in charge if he does not believe in the efficacy of the strategy he would be executing? McChrystal really has no choice if Obama remains committed to the same mission but disagrees about the military means. He needs to get out of the way. A general is obliged to accept the mission but not to pursue a course of action which he/she does not believe will succeed in achieving it. On the other hand, if the President recasts the mission, i.e. limit but do not destroy the Taliban, focus solely on isolating Al Qaeda or some such, McChrystal may develop an entirely different approach to fit the new mission.
The matter of talking in the media about his differences with the President is an entirely different matter. If he needs to resign, fine, but he should keep his mouth shut until he is no longer serving the President,
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eztempo
October 11, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to ogliberal
Not only has Feinstein been muddled on the authority of the President since she arrived in Washington, she's always been a sucker for a man in uniform. It's those 'trappings of authority' that seem to make her go all weak-kneed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
October 11, 2009 12:01 PM
Senator Feinstein has zero credibility on the the issues of war. She voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 and only in 2004 did she admit she was wrong--using the lame excuse that she was lied to. (Bear in mind that the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution.)
We're having to make up for the distraction of Iraq as we face the real enemies we have--the terrorists who are finding a haven between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Remember that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and we simply CANNOT allow terrorists to get their hands on this technology. Recall the Paki scientist who was selling this technology to the highest bidder? Recall that India and Pakistan came within a hair's breath of exchanging nuclear fire. America would not come out of this sort of nuclear exchange unscathed. And it is certainly believable that terrorists would simply love to hold any free people under a blackmail threat of a nuclear incident.
So, yes, the results in Afghanistan and Pakistan are extremely important. Obama has led the fight for securing nuclear materials since he was a Senator. There's no reason to believe that this will end now. Nor should it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
October 11, 2009 12:14 PM
As things have now progressed, there is nothing we can do that will secure the nuclear weapons possessed by Pakistan. We don't have a sufficiently big military establishment to take on the job of policing Pakistan, and they would not sit by and watch if we tried to do that. Nuclear weapons exist in many places in the world. That cannot be reversed, undone, made inoperative. It exists.
Given that I can't see the objective for continuing to do whatever we think we are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, nor did I see the objective back when Bush first ordered the military to invade Afghanistan. It has never been a military campaign with an achievable objective, if it even had an objective beyond filling the need so many Americans felt for revenge.
Let's grow up and act like adults for a change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
October 11, 2009 12:21 PM
One more thing: we need to clarify our thinking. When we speak of "the terrorists" in discussing this issue, we are not thinking clearly. "The terrorists" is a PR phrase, not a description of any real entity. Why not go after "the murderers", or "the hijackers", or "the pirates", or whatever other noun meets our fancy? Terrorists exist all over the world, including here in our country. I know of no way to fight "the terrorists" by killing Moslems in Pakistan or Afghanistan. "The terrorists" aren't even the same people from month to month.
Good News! George Bush and his neo-con cabal are no longer in charge! We can go back to speaking real English about real people and real events.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
October 11, 2009 2:55 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
My only agreement with you is to change my general term "the terrorists" to "Al Queda". That makes it specific.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
October 11, 2009 12:32 PM
So DiFi thinks Pakistan will be in trouble from Afghanistan? Is she really that ignorant? The Taliban and al-Quaeda are using Pakistan's "tribal areas" (the Waziristans) as a base of operations from which to move into Afghanistan to conduct their operations, then back because we are not going to invade an "ally" militarily.
Pakistan has been making noises about getting serious about the tribal areas recently, though the invasion and hostage taking in Pakistani Army HQ gives me pause.
And Karzai is not in need of "a spine" - his government is crooked from top to bottom and has no real support from the people. That's not something a (rhetorical) "spine" can fix. He has to go. Problem there is, who replaces him?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
October 11, 2009 12:42 PM
Get out ASAP. That is the only sensible thing. Anyone who thinks we (or anybody) can 'win' in this circumstance or 'fix' the things wrong in that part of the world is a dumbass. Or a traitor. Or both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 11, 2009 12:54 PM
If we had a draft, no way we would be in either country right now. I wish they'd bring that back for the very reason it would make the Ameican public scrutinize our leaders' reasons for going to war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bademus
October 11, 2009 12:59 PM
I don't see us having long term success in Afghanistan if the gov't there is corrupt and not supported by the majority of the people. If we are fighting to destroy al Qaida and the militias and groups friendly to it, including the Taliban, what's to keep them from coming back into power if the people don't support the "democratic" government. Afghanistan needs to have a valid election at some point if they are to have long term stability.
I'm not buying that there is a moderate Taliban. I think that is a PR stunt. The Pakistani military is planning an invasion against the Taliban in South Waziristan, near the Afghan border which is a stronghold for the al Queda aligned Taliban. We need to be there on the Afghan side to keep them from crossing back into Afghanistan to evade the Pakistani military. If the Pakistani govt. is serious about eliminating the militants that are currently threatening it we can work with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
October 11, 2009 1:03 PM
I think WE should really be more concerned about what's going on in Pakistan than Afghanistan. Afghanistan has poppies and Pakistan has the bomb. I have more fear of Al Queda getting their hands on the bomb than I do of them getting their hands on poppies. Note the assault teams were dressed in Pakistani military uniforms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the possibility once they know where the bombs and fuses are, it'll be child's play to go in and get them. And the last thing the world needs is a radical Muslim with a live bomb to play with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
October 11, 2009 2:53 PM in reply to Beetlejuice
Poppies equals money. Al Queda controlled the drug money and the nation in Afghanistan. Why change the program? Now, they want the drug money and control in Pakistan so they can get their hands on nuclear material. Like you, I see no reason to oblige them....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wiggster
October 11, 2009 2:59 PM
I am curious about Karzai. He is a bright educated man, yet the reports of ballot stuffing I have seen have been so over the top in regards to the ratio of residents to votes counted...it is SO blatant, i.e. 30,000 residents to 200,000 votes in one report I saw. WHO stuffed the ballot boxes? I really wonder if Karzai was behind it. There are probably many groups interested in destabilizing the Karzai-US relationship. Richard Engel, on Rachel Maddow, stated the Afghan position: Go Home.
Just a thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?