The San Francisco Examiner nailed it. The headline is "Lyndon Baines Obama takes Afghanistan reins."
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama described the conflict in Afghanistan as a “war of necessity,” but the plan he announced last night at the U.S. Military Academy bears disturbing reminders of the doomed strategy doggedly pursued by the last Democratic president to commit the U.S. to a major land war in Asia.
Senator Russ Feingold gets it right:
Representative Tammy Baldwin didn't equivocate:
I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there. I will work with members of both parties and both houses of Congress to push for a flexible timetable to reduce our troop levels in Afghanistan, as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat al Qaeda in the region and around the world.
“In 2001, I voted to authorize the use of force to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
I believe our current actions in Afghanistan and President Obama’s proposal for moving forward bear little resemblance to that original, narrowly-focused mission.
I cannot endorse a military surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s time for our troops to come home.”
Paul thinks differently, and will post subsequently.
- Barry Orton