TPM LiveWire
Feingold: Afghanistan Strategy 'Doesn't Make Any Sense To Me'
Ben Frumin | December 6, 2009, 1:36PM
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said on This Week today that President Obama's Afghanistan strategy "doesn't make any sense to me" and "defies common sense."
Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Here's the video.
If anything, Feingold said, the escalation of the Afghanistan war will further embolden the Taliban and push the Afghan population to embrace America's enemies.
"This boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest," Feingold said.
Comments (4) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
masanf
December 6, 2009 1:46 PM
More of the same ridiculous "more troops "creates" more terrorists" crap.
All these "arguments" were put forth in opposition to the Iraq surge as well, and they all ended up being spectacularly wrong.
How long before Moveon.org takes out an ad calling McChrystal a traitor?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LJG
December 6, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to masanf
More of the same ridiculous "more troops "creates" more terrorists" crap.
If the United States were occupied by an overwhelming and unstoppable military presence from another part of the world, more foreign troops would incite us to do more of the only thing we would be able to do: terrorism. Human nature is the same all over the globe.
All these "arguments" were put forth in opposition to the Iraq surge as well, and they all ended up being spectacularly wrong.
The Iraq surge was done (according to Bush) to create an opening for positive political change. This did not happen. The surge was not successful. Violence dramatically dropped off after the surge for two reasons: 1. We started paying off tribal leaders. 2. The horrible ethnic cleansing of Baghdad became complete.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
December 6, 2009 10:33 PM in reply to masanf
1. Afghanistan is not Iraq.
2. The American war in Iraq did demonstrably create more terrorists:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html
The "surge" was accompanied by negotiations with insurgents, and payments to Iraq Sunni leaders:
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200905.ricks.understandingsurgeiraq.html
Your ignorance is showing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 22, 2010 8:18 PM
I’ve talked about fighting, but as you can see, talking in 2007-08 was just as important if not more important than fighting. At the strategic level, Petraeus cut a deal with the Sunni insurgency, putting nearly 100,000 of them on the payroll, at a cost of $30 million a month, which I think was worth it. I asked Petraeus once, “For several years, President Bush had talked about the enemy in Iraq as the evildoers. How did you break it to him that you were going to put the evildoers on the payroll?” He replied that he didn’t need to bring it up, saying it was within his existing authorities. Well, it wasn’t, but if we want our generals to be audacious, and we do, that’s audacity. Petraeus knew that putting the insurgents on the American payroll was risky. If it blew up, he was going to be the person blamed for it. But he went ahead and did it.
cialis lovegra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?