Minnesota delegation reacts to Afghanistan ‘extended surge’

U.S. troops in Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Photo: Army.mil via Flickr

Minnesota’s congressional delegation weighed in Wednesday on President Obama’s plans for the war in Afghanistan with a mix of skepticism and cautious praise. Here’s a sampling of those reactions:

Rep. Tim Walz: “His speech tonight gave us some good information about not just the troop increase, but also the mission, the plan for withdrawal and the resources necessary to finish the job.

“I’m also committed to continuing to engage the public on this topic and to having the Administration fill in additional details about our strategy. We as a nation need to better understand the total cost of continuing to wage war, and also the cost to our national security if we choose not to continue our efforts in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Betty McCollum: “Tonight, President Obama did exactly what he told the American people he would do during the campaign – make Afghanistan a priority. I support the President’s commitment of additional resources to secure Afghanistan because achieving stability in that region is vital to the security of American families.

“All additional funding necessary to achieve stability in this region should not be put on America’s credit card, but paid for today. In a time of economic crisis, borrowing billions of dollars from China to pay for war in Afghanistan actually undermines our national security. Shared sacrifice means not only committing to fight a war but also committing to pay for it.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann: “After several long months of deliberation, I’m pleased that the President has not turned his back on Afghanistan. However, I sincerely hope that the President is truly committed to victory. While it’s important to acknowledge that U.S. forces will not be in Afghanistan forever, we must not have a concrete time line for withdrawal as it will ultimately hurt our effort and energize our enemies.”

Rep. John Kline: “In August, General McChrystal said we’re in danger of losing if we don’t provide our troops with the resources they need. I don’t want to send our sons and daughters – including my son, who is scheduled to return to Afghanistan early next year – into a situation we can’t win. Accordingly, I have deep concerns regarding whether the President is providing sufficient U.S. forces in order to achieve success in Afghanistan while building the Afghan National Security Forces to a level that can sustain security gains achieved by U.S. and NATO troops.”

“I also am concerned about any discussion of an ‘exit strategy’ or ‘end game’ that would telegraph to the Taliban and al-Qaeda the timeline necessary to run out the ‘Washington clock.’”

Rep. Jim Oberstar: “This was President Obama’s most poignant and forceful speech to date – he made a strong, intellectual case for expanding the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, stating clearly what the augmented force will do. He also made a compelling emotional appeal for stepping up the fight based on the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

I was impressed with the fact that he laid out a timetable for withdrawal rather than basing it on conditions under which a drawdown would occur. The latter hedges the issue, while a timetable makes a commitment to accomplish the mission without delay.

But he didn’t say how we will pay for it, and because of that I will have to reserve judgment until we see what specific requests he will make to Congress and what the true cost will be to the American people.”

Sen. Al Franken: “I am glad that the President has deliberated carefully and I will be closely examining the new strategy in the days and weeks ahead, starting with the testimony of Secretaries Gates and Clinton and Admiral Mullen this week. I go into that examination, quite frankly, skeptical about a strategy that involves a significant increase in the number of American troops. That is in no small part because I am deeply skeptical of the Afghan government.

“I need to be convinced that we have reliable partners in both Pakistan and Afghanistan; that the mission as outlined is achievable; that we are not making an open-ended commitment; and that there is a sensible way to pay for the war.”

MinnPost caught up with Reps. Keith Ellison and Collin Peterson, who each expressed some skepticism.

“I am concerned about the increased troop levels, but I am glad he at least has a specific plan he wants them to follow and a time limit to get them out,” Ellison said. He also said that helping the Afghanis build their civil society was encouraging

Peterson didn’t sound too convinced.

“It was a fine speech in terms of generalities,” Peterson said. “I’ve got some questions on some specifics of it.”