House rejects pullout from Afghanistan

Related Topics

Two helicopters escorting U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates take off after a visit to Camp Black Horse where the Afghan National Army (ANA) receive training in Kabul March 10, 2010. REUTERS/Ahmad Masood

Two helicopters escorting U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates take off after a visit to Camp Black Horse where the Afghan National Army (ANA) receive training in Kabul March 10, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Ahmad Masood

WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:53pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected a measure calling for President Barack Obama to pull U.S. forces from Afghanistan, in an election-year test of his decision to escalate the war.

But dozens of Obama's Democrats in the House did support the pullout resolution, indicating division over war policy ahead of November congressional elections in which Republicans are expected to make gains.

Sixty-five lawmakers, most of them Democrats, voted for the pullout resolution written by liberal Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, while 356 voted against.

It was the first challenge by the Democratic majority in Congress to U.S. involvement in the conflict since Obama ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and an offensive began last month to retake the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province.

Supporters of the resolution said it was time for U.S. lawmakers to consider if they wanted to continue the nearly nine-year-old war in which about 1,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent.

"Unless this Congress acts to claim its constitutional responsibility, we will stay in Afghanistan for a very, very long time at great cost to our troops and to our national priorities," Kucinich said.

Detractors argued the United States could not withdraw from Afghanistan before the government there was able to provide security because the Taliban could then provide safe haven for al Qaeda once again.

"I'm keenly aware that even if we remain in Afghanistan -- and here I want to emphasize this -- there's no guarantee that we will prevail in our fight against al Qaeda. But if we don't try, we are guaranteed to fail," said Representative Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan in 2001 after the September 11 attacks by al Qaeda on the United States. But Kucinich said the 2001 vote was not intended to endorse unending war at an ever-rising price.

Aware that many liberal Democrats are unhappy about the continuing war, Obama has said the plan is to start pulling U.S. forces from Afghanistan from July 2011.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
ranger52 wrote:
Congress…violated the public trust when they passed the War Powers Act and failed to ask the public to Amend the Constitution to enable the executive to declare these wars. They, along with the President have denyed the reason for government and have in effect brought about state sanctioned anarchy of political power.

Mar 10, 2010 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GreyLmist wrote:
We now have a roll call vote of all members of Congress who are in favor of more war casualties and costs — as long as they don’t have to be sent to fight — until some unlikely time that there are no more real or false-flag acts of Afghan resistance to prolong our stay. What’s needed now is a bill to specially draft all those pro-marathon war supporters in Congress and throughout America (by a similar roll call vote of citizens) and another bill to tax them all specially to pay for what they want over there — like property buyers are taxed specially. None of them should be given any deferments either because they’re supposedly too old. That would be discriminatory.

Mar 11, 2010 8:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.