I'm not sure if this has been posted on Dkos yet, but Senators Merkley, Udall and twelve others are circulating a letter to the President which strongly advises him to begin a "sizable and sustained reduction" of our deployment to Afghanistan as reported by Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy.
I thought Senator Durbin's willingness to step up to the plate and explain why he wants a serious drawdown of troops deserved some commentary from me, so, here's the letter I just sent to a senior staff member:
Senator Durbin -
I would like to thank, and congratulate, you for finally talking about our role in Afghanistan in public.
I'm referring to the letter to the President which I understand you and thirteen other senators have signed and are circulating.
Here is the full text of the letter. I am highlighting portions of it which make arguments for substantial re-deployment of our troops, and which use some of the same facts and reasoning which I have conveyed to you and your staff repeatedly for the past two-plus years:
June X, 2011
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write to express our strong support for a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.
In 2001 the United States rightfully and successfully intervened in Afghanistan with the goals of destroying al Qaeda's safe haven, removing the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursuing those who planned the September 11 attacks on the United States. Those original goals have been largely met and today, as CIA Director Leon Panetta noted last June, "I think at most, we're looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less" al Qaeda members remaining in Afghanistan.
In addition, over the past few years, U.S. forces have killed or captured dozens of significant al Qaeda leaders. Then, on May 2, 2011, American Special Forces acting under your direction located and killed Osama bin Laden. The death of the founder of al Qaeda is a major blow that further weakens the terrorist organization.
From the initial authorization of military force through your most recent State of the Union speech, combating al Qaeda has always been the rationale for our military presence in Afghanistan. Given our successes, it is the right moment to initiate a sizable and sustained reduction in forces, with the goal of steadily withdrawing all regular combat troops.
There are those who argue that rather than reduce our forces, we should maintain a significant number of troops in order to support a lengthy counter-insurgency and nation building effort. This is misguided. We will never be able to secure and police every town and village in Afghanistan. Nor will we be able to build Afghanistan from the ground up into a Western-style democracy.
Endemic corruption in Afghanistan diverts resources intended to build roads, schools, and clinics, and some of these funds end up in the hands of the insurgents. Appointments of provincial and local officials on the basis of personal alliances and graft leads to deep mistrust by the Afghan population. While it is a laudable objective to attempt to build new civic institutions in Afghanistan, this goal does not justify the loss of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Instead of continuing to be embroiled in ancient local and regional conflicts in Afghanistan, we must accelerate the transfer of responsibility for Afghanistan's development to the Afghan people and their government. We should maintain our capacity to eliminate any new terrorist threats, continue to train the Afghan National Security Forces, and maintain our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. However, these objectives do not require the presence of over 100,000 American troops engaged in intensive combat operations.
Mr. President, according to our own intelligence officials, al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan, and, as the strike against bin Laden demonstrated, we have the capacity to confront our terrorist enemies with a dramatically smaller footprint. The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan.
We urge you to follow through on the pledge you made to the American people to begin the redeployment of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this summer, and to do so in a manner that is sizable and sustained, and includes combat troops as well as logistical and support forces.
We look forward to working with you to pursue a strategy in Afghanistan that makes our nation stronger and more secure.
Sincerely,
(Signatures as of 6/8/11)
Sen. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
The death of OBL proves that intelligence and small counter-terrorist operations are what is required for the safety of the United States from international jihadists, and NOT large-scale counter-insurgency operations against those who are not our enemies. This has been true for a long, long time, and the manner of the demise of OBL only proves as much.
I thank you for your current rhetoric, and must remind myself that you are a leader in an independent branch of a constitutional government. As such, not only should you advise the President, but you also serve as a check and a balance for the executive branch. You do not have to shovel more money which will be used to buy more boards and nails to crucify our troops in an unnecessary deployment.
In your letter above, you said, The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan. The executive branch has its own problems and pressures with which to contend, and that is the executive branch's circumstance, and should not detract from the Senate's capacity and responsibility to do what is in the interest of our Armed Forces and nation.
For the benefit of our Armed Forces and for our nation, it is incumbent on you to act in keeping with your rhetoric, by using your legislative power and influence to draw down funding of further forward military operations in Afghanistan. This is within your power and purview. Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and thus are in control of the committees.
Please apprise me of what effective actions you are taking (aside from your recent rhetoric) as a senate leader, which will result in redeployment "in a manner that is sizable and sustained, and includes combat troops as well as logistical and support forces."
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxx
If your senators haven't signed on to this letter, then you can ask 'em why the hell they haven't, and if they HAVE signed it, you can tell them you expect them to back up the rhetoric with action.