Area legislators fear troop plan lacks purpose

Federal lawmakers offered varying opinions about President Barack Obama's speech at West Point Tuesday calling for 30,000 additional troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.

"I have mixed emotions," said U.S. Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Howard. "Frankly, keeping our sons and daughters out of harm's way is vital and we need to honor what the commanders on the ground recommend," he said. "However, 30,000 out of the 40,000 the generals required disappointed me," Thompson said. "Obviously, that's better than nothing."

Thompson also was critical of the three months it took Obama to analyze and decide.

During that time, he "put troops in harm's way," Thompson said. Commanders needed resources and to delay their request a quarter of a year isn't good, he added.

Thompson also had difficulty with Obama's withdrawal date of 18 months.

Additionally, Thompson said under Article 5 where a NATO country is attacked and all members of NATO respond, "To set this withdrawal date emboldens the enemy and discourages allies," he said.

Thompson said he had serious concerns that the deadline discouraged the allies, including more than 60 countries in the international effort to fight al-Qaeda.

"We declare to the world and our enemies that without condition we would be leaving Afghanistan," he said. "I don't believe it was smart to embolden the enemy during a time of war."

During the speech, Obama said the withdrawal would be managed responsibly and would take "into account conditions on the ground."

U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Dimock, issued a statement after Obama's speech at West Point Tuesday night:

"It is critical that we not back down from terrorists who threaten our long-term security. Sending additional troops into Afghanistan will give us the military manpower to contain al-Qaeda and the Taliban while laying the groundwork for the Afghan military to step up and the Afghan government to implement long-needed reforms," Carney said.

Carney was concerned about the narrow timeframe that the president has presented.

"While our commitment cannot be open-ended, the reality on the ground in Afghanistan must dictate the actual timeframe. It could take 18 months for our troops to be fully deployed and trained and equipped for battle. The president did an excellent job laying out the reasons for the overall policy, but I will reserve judgment until I see the full details of the plan."

Carney said demonstrating a commitment to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan will signal U.S. resolve to the region and help Pakistan focus its attention on fighting terrorism on its side of the border.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Scranton, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, also gave a statement.

"I applaud the president for taking a thorough look at all aspects of the issues related to Afghanistan, Pakistan, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This comprehensive review and strategic analysis did not happen in the lead-up to the war in Iraq," Casey said.

"As a country, we deserved a full accounting of the challenges posed in Afghanistan. And that's what we got from the Obama administration. We also have a responsibility in the Congress to help get the strategy right. I have worked over the past few months to discuss these issues on the floor of the Senate in a series of speeches."

Casey said he traveled for a second time to Afghanistan in August and met with General Stanley McChrystal, President Hamid Karzai, the Ministers of Defense and Interior and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry as well as other U.S. government officials.

"When I returned to the U.S. in August, I met with Secretary (of State) Hillary Clinton, Secretary (of Defense) Robert Gates, National Security Advisor James E. Jones and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. I read the full McChrystal report. We have held several hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We will have more hearings and deliberation to examine the president's strategy and ask tough questions."

Clinton, Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen will appear before the Foreign Relations Committee today to discuss the president's plan, Casey said.

"As we move forward, the Senate has an essential role to play in oversight and monitoring of our engagement in Afghanistan.

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Philadelphia, stated he opposes sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because he is not persuaded that it is indispensable in the U.S. fight against al-Qaeda.

"If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat al-Qaeda since they're out to annihilate us," Specter said. "But if al-Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?" Specter questioned.

"I disagree with Obama's two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our NATO allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit."