Moving forward in Afghanistan
October 6, 2009 | By Amanda Reinecker
Last Saturday, eight American servicemen and two Afghan policemen were killed in a terrorist assault in Afghanistan.
This blow comes at a critical point in the war, when General Stanley McChrystal, the NATO commander, has reportedly asked President Obama for an additional 40,000 U.S. troops in order to beat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Despite pledges to improve security in Afghanistan, the President now seems on the fence about fulfilling his commander's request.
McChrystal has offered a promising strategy for the war. President Obama would be wise to embrace this long view strategy, writes Heritage's Conn Carroll in the Morning Bell, "and avoid short-sighted policies that undermine our friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while encouraging our enemies."
Americans should pay close attention to the path President Obama chooses in Afghanistan, since his decision will prove critical to America's national security interests, write Heritage Foundation experts Lisa Curtis and James Phillips.
"There appears to be some wishful thinking within the Obama Administration regarding the U.S's ability to negotiate a political solution with the Taliban," write Curtis and Phillips. But negotiations have yet to work with al-Qaeda and Taliban, who are now more unified than ever by their anti-Western aims. As Henry Kissinger wrote in Newsweek, "even so-called realists -- like me -- would gag at a tacit U.S. cooperation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan."
Recent U.S. gains in Pakistan provide sufficient evidence that we can succeed, but only with continued dedication and support in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Now is the time to demonstrate military resolve in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda and its affiliates will be squeezed on both sides," insist Curtis and Phillips. "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, nor will public support."
Yet the Left continues to stall any decision by pressuring the White House to devise an exit strategy and refuse any additional troops. President Obama should ignore the partisan rhetoric. Instead, he should trust the expertise and judgment of those he personally appointed to lead.
"If the Obama administration chooses to deny its field commander's request for more troops and instead seeks to engage Taliban leaders in negotiations with the vain hope that these militants will break from their al-Qaeda allies, the results will likely be disastrous," warn Curtis and Phillips.
Sneaking in amnesty
When the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) worked with President Bush to enact amnesty for illegal immigrants without open debate, the American people were quite rightly outraged. Now the Obama administration is trying to do the same thing, and it's looking "even worse," Heritage national security expert Jim Carafano writes in the Washington Examiner.
Aware that granting amnesty to lawbreakers may provoke a strong reaction, President Obama and one of the bill's key authors, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have decided to keep it under wraps until the new year. In fact, the administration is drafting the legislation itself behind closed doors, rather than in the usual Congressional committees. That means Congressmen won't even see the "hundreds of pages of complicated legislative language" until the bill is brought to the floor.
"After witnessing the firestorm over health reform, Obama apparently has decided never to go down that 'let Congress lead' route again," explains Carafano. This means the proposal won't reflect Congressional debate -- including input from those skeptical of granting amnesty -- but instead will reflect only the President's priorities.
» Join this important debate by posting a comment on The Washington Examiner's website.
To avoid the angry protestors and heated town hall debates that greeted his health care "reform" proposal, the President won't unveil his grand plan until January. Conveniently, this is just after lawmakers return to Washington from their winter break, and therefore after lawmakers leave their home districts, where they would have to explain their actions.
The health care debates made very clear that the American people want to know what their government is up to -- and they deserve to know. But how can they when even their elected representatives aren't privy to it? "It's a bad plan, Mr. President," writes Carafano. "Americans deserve better. Publish now or let perish."
Other Heritage work of note
- "Sanctions may be the only non-military way for wrenching Iran from its nuclear course, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that it will be easy -- or successful," writes Heritage national security expert Peter Brookes. China's relationship with Iran will likely pose the greatest challenge to a sanctions regime. Beijing's deeply vested interest in Tehran's oil supplies and the weapons pact between the two nations makes it unlikely that China will "serve as a lever of influence in getting Tehran to inch back from the nuclear abyss." Therefore, Brookes recommends, America should seek a "Plan B."
- Over the past 35 years, The Heritage Foundation has become one the nation's leading conservative public policy group. We are the conservative voice the media turn to when they want the facts. For example, Heritage environmental policy expert Ben Lieberman's paper on the "phantom green jobs" within the controversial cap-and-trade bill appeared in 12 different newspapers across the country last week.
- During his campaign, Obama made three promises on health care: 1) if you like your health plan, you can keep it; 2) your health care plan will cost about $2,500 less; and 3) this can be paid for without new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 per year. However, passing any of the current health care proposals will violate these promises in one fell swoop. Heritage expert Robert Book explains that "you will almost certainly not be able to keep your current plan, you will pay a higher premium, and if you are a low-income worker, you will pay higher taxes."
- There's a good chance you're a criminal and don't even know it. This is because "astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent," writes Heritage legal expert Brian Walsh. Walsh is helping lead the bipartisan effort to combat this over-criminalization and ensure criminal laws catch only "actual criminal acts," instead of conduct that is "better dealt with by seeking regulatory and civil remedies."
In other news
- According to a confidential report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran now has "sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable" nuclear warhead.
- Winter heating costs should be lower this winter, according to government reflections, reflecting a decline in energy costs.
- Top Presidential lawyer, Greg Craig, is taking the heat for a failing strategy to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay by January. So much so that he's expected to pack up his things and go.
- As the Supreme Court began its term last Monday, all eyes were on the Court's newest addition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The Washington Post reports that she was vocal in a case concerning how long police must honor a suspect's request for an attorney.
