Feinstein: If Petraeus Wants Afghanistan Troop Drawdown Scrapped, 'Give It To Him, Absolutely'

[unhappycamper]

Feinstein: If Petraeus Wants Afghanistan Troop Drawdown Scrapped, 'Give It To Him, Absolutely'
Sam Stein
[e-mail] | HuffPost Reporting
First Posted: 06-27-10 09:49 AM | Updated: 06-27-10 09:49 AM

A senior Senate Democrat on foreign policy issues said on Sunday that the president's pledged July 2011 timeline for a troop drawdown in Afghanistan was malleable to the requests of military command.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.), whose hawkish grounding has angered progressive in the past, likely facilitated that anger again, when she told "Fox News Sunday" that if General David Petraeus asked for more troops next summer, he should be granted them.

"I would say give it to him, absolutely," said the California Democrat. "Now, let's talk about the deadline. This is a transition point toward the beginning of a withdrawal or a drawdown as Petraeus said in his transcript before the Armed Services . And I think he has flexibility realistically. Ten years is a long time to fight a war, particularly with what happened before the 10 years. And so we need to understand that to get the military trained, get the government online, secure and stabilize, and I think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the Taliban."

Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has long sounded warnings about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. But her comments on Sunday appear to be the most explicit endorsement of scrapping the July 2011 timeframe for a troop drawdown -- should circumstances demand it.

It's a position that will only fuel suspicion that Congress lacks the political will to actually stick to the timeline for withdrawal (by, say, using the power of the purse to affect it). Indeed, Feinstein seemed to fully cede legislative influence over the course of the war when she granted during the Fox News interview that the United States should "put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket at this stage."



NOTE TO MODS: Sorry for the inflammatory header last night.

[jeanpalmer]

1. "we need to...get the government online..."

Has she seen McChrystal's assessment of the government?

"Just five areas out of 122 were classed as being under the "full authority" of the government – with governance rated as non-existent, dysfunctional or unproductive in 89 of the areas. Seven areas out of 120 rated for development were showing sustainable growth. In 48 areas, growth was either stalled or the population were at risk. Less than a third of the military and only 12 per cent of police forces were rated as "effective".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook-2011730.html

[TheKentuckian]

2. Fuck off DiFi. Bring em home now!

[aquart]

3. Isn't her family involved in the defense industry? Did I hear that?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heywood J]

9. There were questions raised about her husband's investments.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070701/news_1n1difi.html

Having the US presence extended would certainly benefit military contractors. That creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, if he's still invested in war.

[unhappycamper]

5. Thanks for the unrecs, guys!

:hi:

[madrchsod]

7. the unrecommenders are out today.....

there`s other posts that are being hit....to bad this "feature" is still in place

[mod mom]

6. Again, her husband benefits from defense contracts:

Army contract for Feinstein's husband / Blum is a director of firm that will get up to $600 million

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-04-22/news/17487250_1_eg-g-division-george-r-melton-president-urs-corp-s-eg-g

and rec'd

[pundaint]

8. Why doesn't Ms Feinstein like civilian control of the military?

It is so obvious that these wars are defeating the United States, that a vote for continuance of war is an automatic disqualification for my vote in November. People in my country are suffering because money that could be helping them is being pissed away on needles foreign adventures. It's un-American, and I say to hell with it.

[PacerLJ35]

10. What demonstrates Petraeus advocates military control of the military?

He's the commander on the ground. He's telling Congress that a firm deadline might not be wise. It's still ultimately up to Congress and the president. Petraeus wouldn't be a good leader if he didn't accurately advise the civilian leadership of what he thinks it will take to achieve some success there. He's not paid to be an anti-war advocate. He's not paid to find a quick way out of Afghanistan. He was put in charge to try and achieve the president's goals in Afghanistan, period. And he thinks having a set-in-stone deadline won't work. That is all.