Democrats challenge Obama's Afghan withdrawal plan

WASHINGTON Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:35am EDT

An Afghan boy looks at Kenneth Reynolds, U.S. Marines Corporal of Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, during a patrol outside Patrol Base Johnson in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, July 5, 2011. REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov

An Afghan boy looks at Kenneth Reynolds, U.S. Marines Corporal of Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, during a patrol outside Patrol Base Johnson in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, July 5, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Shamil Zhumatov

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic lawmakers fed up with the lingering war in Afghanistan launched a new challenge to President Barack Obama's plan for a measured U.S. troop withdrawal over the next year as they resumed debate on Wednesday on a $649 billion defense spending bill.

Democratic members of the House of Representatives proposed a series of amendments to the 2012 fiscal year defense appropriations bill aimed at forcing a speedier U.S. troop withdrawal, including by cutting funding for combat operations.

"The whole premise of this war is wrong. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the United States," said Representative Jerrold Nadler.

"We should withdraw our troops now, all of them, as rapidly as physically possible."

Representative James McGovern said Obama's Afghan strategy was not sustainable given difficult economic times at home.

"While we serve as an ATM machine for a corrupt government in Kabul, we tell our own people that we have no money for roads and bridges and schools and teachers and police and firefighters and jobs," he said.

The debate came two weeks after Obama announced his plan to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year and another 23,000 by the end of next summer. The remaining 66,000 U.S. troops would be slowly withdrawn until a final transition to Afghan security control in 2014.

Obama's decision angered some Republicans and Democrats who had hoped for a speedier withdrawal at a time when U.S. budget deficits have hit $1.4 trillion, and the $14.3 trillion U.S. national debt is leading to demands for a sharp cutback in government spending.

Final votes on the Afghanistan amendments were not expected until Thursday. Lawmakers also planned amendments challenging U.S. involvement in the NATO-led and U.N.-mandated no-fly zone to protect citizens in Libya.

The spending bill being debated by the House envisions a Pentagon base budget of about $530.5 billion and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan of about $118.7 billion.

Those amounts are about $8 billion less than what Obama had requested.


Penny-conscious House lawmakers made little headway in trimming more from Pentagon funding on Wednesday, but the Republican-led chamber did agree to raise spending for U.S. military bands to $320 million, overturning a Democratic bid to cut the request by $120 million.

"The facts about our bands are that they are an integral part of the patriotism that keeps our soldiers' hearts beating fast," said Representative John Carter, who introduced the amendment to eliminate the curb on band funding.

Nadler, who opposed the amendment, said it was difficult to justify the funding at a time when social programs for the needy were facing cuts.

"I love John Philip Sousa," he said, referring to the composer of "The Stars and Stripes Forever" and other marching tunes. "I love military bands, I love marching bands, but people have to eat. And we're being savaged in the budget that we're passing and in the negotiations on the debt ceiling."

Representative Betty McCollum, who had cut $120 million in band funding during committee deliberations, said the Army alone had more than 100 bands employing 4,600 professional musicians and support staff.

Carter said there were some 250 military bands and a band played some 1,200 "musical missions" per 12- to 15-month deployment. He said cutting the band funding would not save American taxpayers "one red cent."

The House rejected several amendments that would have sliced hundreds of millions of dollars from research and development funding and the secretary of defense's budget.

Representative Paul Broun sought to eliminate money for military environmental and HIV research, saying they duplicated work done elsewhere.

"Here we see research being conducted by a military that does not focus on the core mission of national security," Broun said. "HIV research is being conducted ... in my home state of Georgia at the Centers for Disease Control as well as the National Institutes of Health."

But other lawmakers said research on the virus that causes AIDS was a legitimate military function because it poses a threat to military personnel serving overseas in areas where the HIV virus is more widespread.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

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
Comments (2)
JoeMulick wrote:
About time, I fully support any Dem behind these measures..

Jul 07, 2011 1:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Hozee wrote:
320 million for bands but we can’t save one red cent by cutting them? I’m all for supporting our troops but perhaps if we weren’t fighting so many wars with mission goals that are unrealistic at best and out right counter productive to our national security at worst, we wouldn’t need 250 bands to make our men and women fell “patriotic”. We need to cut the pentagon budget back to where they can’t fund these wars at all. If after our soldiers are returned back home there is a CREDIBLE threat or attack to our nation Emergency funding can always be signed in a heart beat. Congress needs to take the war checkbook away from these Presidents. I am so reminded of Lyndon Johnson’s line in that movie “if they want a war I’ll give em a war”. Seems to me this is what Presidents have been doing since Johnson. The war powers act needs to be rescinded and and a simple Law passed that states in simple terms that our troops will not be deployed for any hostile action or to support any hostile action without a declaration of war by congress so long as there is one living seated congressman PERIOD. History has shown that the power and temptation to kill is to great for one man to hold. Real and credible threats to our nation have no problem getting unanimous consent for war from congress but these “police actions” and “non-kinetic” (whatever the heck that is)actions would have a hard time justifying the killing that is what they are really about.

Jul 07, 2011 2:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.