President Obama is likely to get all the money he needs to
carry out his
"surge" of U.S. forces to Afghanistan, despite widespread skepticism among
the Democratic congressional leadership, the top House defense appropriator
said Wednesday.
John Murtha, D-PA, who chairs the House Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee, said he was not convinced that an increased American
commitment to Afghanistan was wise -- he referred to the options facing the
president as "a real son-of-a-gun" and "horrendous" -- but predicted that the
Democrat-led Congress would give Obama the money anyway.
"I don't see any circumstances under which the president
would lose the battle over the money this year," said Murtha, who traveled to
Afghanistan at the end of last month. "If we're going to stop the deployment ...
we'd have to not only vote against the funding but also have a resolution and
that's not likely."
President Obama promised to work with Congress to figure out
a way to pay for the troop increase, but Murtha stands at the crux of that
process and he isn't sure that will be as easy as the president seems to think.
Contradicting House leadership, Murtha said there would need
to be a supplemental war-spending bill of at least $40 billion just to account
for war operations in fiscal 2010. "Believe me, there will be a supplemental,"
he said, noting that even without the added troops there would have a need for
war funding above what the administration has already asked for.
And even though the administration is planning to request
new war funds in the coming weeks, the supplemental bill will probably come in
the May-June timeframe, Murtha said, well after most of the new troops are
already deployed. The Appropriations Committee chairmen, Rep. David Obey,
D-WI, and Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-HI, have agreed not to fund the extra
troops in the regular defense bill for 2010, which has also not been passed
yet, he added.
On a more fundamental level, Murtha doesn't believe that
that Obama's Afghanistan surge strategy will necessarily work and he pushed
back against Obama's basic premise that the international mission in
Afghanistan is vital to American interests.
"I'm not sure there's a threat to our national security,"
Murtha said, arguing that al Qaeda can train from anywhere and adding that
there is no precedent for successful military campaigns by foreign forces in
Afghanistan. "I'm not sure there's a goal here that can be achieved."
"Historically this is a tough call," Murtha continued,
referencing failed occupations in Afghanistan from the Russians to Alexander
the Great. "This is a real son-of-a-gun. This is horrendous."
Murtha will chair two hearings next week on the issue, one
early next week with Adm. Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence,
and one Dec. 10 with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, and
Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.
He acknowledged once again that Obey's idea to pass a war
surtax bill was unlikely
to happen.
Overall, despite a good speech from the president, Murtha
said several of his subcommittee members remain ambiguous or opposed to the new
strategy.
"Obama says 'You've got to be with us,' and maybe we will be
with him, but I'm still not convinced."
Murtha gave a Obama a book by historian Paul Kennedy entitled The
Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which he said was a relevant warning about how
great powers decline after overextending themselves due to war expenditures.
"The more I look at it, the more I see how it fits in
exactly with what's happening today."
Much like Howard Dean and Ron Paul had done previously. Except, of course, when Obama did it, it was an amazing accomplishment and indicative of his overwhelming support.
Read More
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE