Feingold Gets It Right: : Why Surge Where Al Qaeda Isn't?

by snuffysmith | December 6, 2009 at 11:58 am

223 views | 18 Recommendations | 13 comments

During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), chief Democratic critic of Obama's Afghanistan Surge policy, believes Congress must be able to answer the only relevant question: "Why send troops where al Qaeda isn't?"

Feingold warned that Obama's new policy is counterproductive because it would distract America from the pursuit ofthe global Al Qaeda network.

Feingold's concerns, however, aren't only that Obama is taking his eye off Al Qaeda at a time when the terrorist organization is resurging in other countries. Feingold also warned that U.S. policy in Afghanistan could actually push terrorists and extremists into Pakistan and, as a consequence, further destabilize the region.

Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter [of global terrorism], although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.

"You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan?" he told ABC. "They couldn't deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it's just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest."

Feingold's remarks echoed earlier skepticism of an extended U.S. surge in Afghanistan voiced by Vice President Joseph Biden, weeks before the policy was announced. Biden's remarks occurred around the time that The Los Angeles Times ran the story with a Sana, Yemen dateline, that the growing al Qaeda presence within Yemen may end up toppling the government.

"Al Qaeda in the past focused on bombings and suicide attacks, but now it is also able to target security forces," said Saeed Ali O. Jemhi, an expert on terrorist groups in Yemen. "They have sympathizers and agents within the Yemeni security and intelligence forces. Al Qaeda is in a renewing stage, and its aim is to spread an Islamic caliphate across the Arabian Peninsula."

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

YankeeJim

at 12:11 on December 6th, 2009

Secretary Gates says he doesn't know where Osama is. Everyone conjectures that he is in Pakistan, but boy is that trail cold. Surging in Afghanistan as a set up for attacking a target area in Pakistan to drive the Taliban and al Qaeda out and back to the catcher's mitt in Afghanistan might make sense. Sports metaphors really don't apply in this messy situation where we don't belong.

snuffysmith

at 12:33 on December 6th, 2009

Week in Review »

The War in Pashtunistan

snuffysmith

at 12:43 on December 6th, 2009

WHY SURGE WHERE AL QAEDA ISN'T? Sen. Feingold: 'What Exactly Is This Policy?... It Just Defies Common Sense'

snuffysmith

at 13:31 on December 6th, 2009

U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Stephen J. Otero
Why Obama’s Strategy Won’t Succeed By Eugene Robinson — Even if the surge works, why wouldn't al-Qaida -- or some like-minded group -- simply set up shop in Somalia? Or in Yemen, another failing state?

a211423

at 16:41 on December 6th, 2009

At the risk of sounding repetitive, this escalation from my understanding is to stabelize the region that is Afghanistan. No one denies that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is an illusive line where the Taliban go back and forth at will. Also, this surge is buying time for us, the training mission, and for Karsai to follow through with his promises to clean up his government and mend some fences with the Pashtun in the provinces, while the U.S. and the Allies train Afghani troops who will take over the mission with adequate civilian assistance for infrastructure. It's as much a training and civilian agenda as it is surge agenda. To pick up and leave now could be disasterous, and I am philosophically against war.

Good books have a beginning, a middle, and an end. The current stratedgy is beginning now, will be reviewed in the middle next December, and begin to end in July 2011. The ending could be lingering, but if the stratedy is correct there will not be any surprises.

No one denies Al Qaeda is spreading throughout the world, and it will take a global effort to confront them in some way that is yet to be determined. No one country should have to shoulder the burdon of fighting terrorism as the threats are international.

YankeeJim

at 06:42 on December 7th, 2009

Nailed it: "It's as much a training and civilian agenda as it is surge agenda."

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 16:51 on December 6th, 2009

Every administration official on the Sunday Talk Shows today, said that the July 2011 is not a hard date. The all seem to agree that it will slip and seem to be preparing to let the public down slowly. Reality has set in, in that you can.t possibly expect the Afghan National Army to take over in that short a time. I'm afraid U.S. troops will be there long after December 2011. I hope I'm wrong. How can you make Karzai responsible for something that is controlled by NATO (but mainly by the U.S)?

YankeeJim

at 06:43 on December 7th, 2009

Roger that.

a211423

at 17:05 on December 6th, 2009

The Afghan Army will not have to take over completely, although if the 130,000 troop level is met, it appears they could with some NATO leadership. The Afghan Army supported by an international representation of troops, not the majority American post December 2011.

I agree the draw down could be slow, and this would be acceptable if the stratedgy has proven successful with measurable results. If, however, it is not working which could be determined in December 2010, then I would not favor further escalation. I think the fear by many is that it will be escalated beyond the current commitment. I did not get the impression that it would be, rather the opposite. This is the last chance to make it work.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 17:18 on December 6th, 2009

If this is so important, as two consecutive Administrations have claimed it to be, what would be the alternative? It seems to me the only thing that has been taken out of this equation is nation building. Well, you can't employ every Afghan in the army. Somewhere along the line you need schools and infrastructure and jobs.

If the life of Afghans can.t be improved and there is no way they can provide for their families, where will this strategy lead to? I'm under no illusion here, you don.t make this kind of commitment without some measureable results at the end. What exactly is success? What is it they want Karzai to do?

YankeeJim

at 06:44 on December 7th, 2009

Zactly: "Somewhere along the line you need schools and infrastructure and jobs. "

WileyGator (not verified)

at 20:44 on December 6th, 2009

a211423 and Albertacowpoke, I agree with both of you.This is from CBS about Obama's speach:The president said the three core elements to the new strategy are "a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan."Let's hope that part about the civilian surge addresses some of your issues: Albertacowpoke: Somewhere along the line you need schools and infrastructure and jobs. And, as far as Feingold goes, just because Al Qaeda does not have significant forces in Helmand Province does not mean that the taliban doesn't. And, yes I KNOW that the taliban and Al Qaeda are not the same thing. But, we have to defeat the taliban to have a stable Afghanistan. After all, the taliban giving safe haven to Al Qaeda is pretty much what started this whole thing.Feingold wants us to put troops on the Afghan side of the Pakistan border and do what? Invade Pakistan? Intercept all of the extremists that are going to be leaving Helmand Province? Oh yeah, they won't be leaving because he wouldn't put them there.The strategy is to Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} stabilize the government, train their defense and police forces and let them secure the borders.