Spokane7
61°
March 11, 2010 in Nation/World
House rejects measure to end war, bring troops home now
U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan could come early, Gates suggests
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates greets U.S. troops as he tours the training grounds of Camp Blackhorse in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Wednesday.
(Full-size photo)
WASHINGTON – Congressional opponents of the war in Afghanistan forced a debate Wednesday on the floor of the House of Representatives on a resolution to bring U.S. forces home and end the eight-year-old war.
The measure ended up losing, 356-65, a margin that had been expected. Nonetheless, anti-war representatives welcomed the debate as a chance to express pent-up frustration with the continued troop buildup in Afghanistan, and to express their view that the original mission of U.S. forces, defeating al-Qaida, had been lost.
The debate took place as the Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, on a visit to Afghanistan, suggested a drawdown of U.S. forces could begin before July 2011, the date the Obama administration said a U.S. troop surge would peak and forces would begin to withdraw.
While acknowledging the withdrawal could come sooner, Gates emphasized any reduction “would have to be conditions-based.”
Defense officials played down Gates’ remarks, saying he was not announcing a new goal but emphasizing the administration’s intention to hand over control to Afghan security forces as soon as they are ready.
During the House debate, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., emphasized that Obama’s strategy includes a “promised drawdown” and noted Gates’ comments that the withdrawal could come earlier than July 2011.
“I want the U.S. military out of Afghanistan at the earliest reasonable date. But accelerating the Obama administration’s carefully calibrated time table could take grievous risks with our national security,” Harman said.
The resolution was sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a former presidential candidate, and would force Obama to withdraw U.S. forces within 30 days of passage of the measure by the House and Senate.
Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., said she supported the resolution because the U.S. was no longer fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
“This Congress has an obligation to send a strong message to the White House that the war must come to an end,” she said. “Who are we fighting. Over the course of this time this war and its mission and its goals have morphed and morphed and morphed.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., wearing a tie festooned with peace symbols, called the Afghanistan war a “foreign occupation” that was unconstitutional, and would leave thousands of more young people with brain damage.
“We won and now we could go home a long time. in fact we could have gone home a long time ago,” Grayson said. “We simply can’t afford these wars any more in price of money or the price of blood.”
Five Republicans joined 60 Democrats in supporting the measure to force a troop withdrawal. Opposing the resolution were 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans. Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott was the only Washington state representative to vote in favor of the measure. Both of Idaho’s representatives voted no.
“The country is totally bankrupt and we are spending trillions of dollars on these useless wars,” said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a libertarian and former presidential candidate. “History shows all empires end because they expand too far and bankrupt the country, just as the Soviet system came down.”
Republican supporters of the war repeatedly questioned why the sponsors of the resolution were forcing a debate before giving the Obama administration a chance to show its new strategy is working.
“Why second guess the commander-in-chief and his commanders so soon after the announcement of a new strategy?” said Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif. “Four months ago the president reminded us why we are in Afghanistan. It was the epicenter of where al-Qaida planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent Americans.”
Some opponents said the resolution, if passed, would endanger soldiers and Marines by forcing a premature retreat.
“There is a clear and present danger in removing our men and women from the field while they are engaged in the first major assault of President Obama’s reaffirmed counter-insurgency strategy,” said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
CharlesBillford on March 11 at 12:05 a.m.
Support our Troops.
By bringing them home.
Im glad they voted to continue to bankrupt us. Thats what we did to the Soviets.
greyhound2 on March 11 at 4:31 a.m.
Dollars for death. Pennies for life.
mikeln on March 11 at 4:47 a.m.
the only way we are can stop these senseless wars is to take the profit away. how much of the money we borrowed from china, a communist nation, went right into halliburtons bank account? what did we get for this money? death and destruction, thats what we put our children in debt to a communist country for?
cowboy on March 11 at 7:34 a.m.
Imagine ………when China wants its money back and all we have is plastic money.
Sadly when our soldiers come home there aren’t any jobs for them and unemployment numbers will sky rocket.
WillyPeter on March 11 at 8:09 a.m.
Gee, thought for a minute there that I was reading stuff from those good ol’ Viet Nam days. Same gnashing and gnarling, wailing and weeping that we witnessed in the 60’s. You remember. It went something like this, “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho… let’s get rid of BHO.” Who said, “The more things change, the more they stay the same?”
spokanada on March 11 at 8:39 a.m.
Unbelievable. What does a victory in Afghanistan even look like.
The terrorists will win this war too.
mikeln on March 11 at 8:42 a.m.
I had not seen the story about Kansas City closeing allmost half of their schools when I made my first comment. The amount of money being spent on these wars for profit, mainly to the crooks at Halliburton which includes Dick Cheany, would have been better spent educating our children so they would be smart enough to rid our great country of the aforemention crooks. I am certain our children would rather be in debt for education than for death and destruction.
spokanada on March 11 at 8:52 a.m.
If the children of Kansas get educated, they might vote democrat and if that happens, there would be a reduction on wars and miltary spending. It’s all cyclical.
We need to dumb down the population so kids will have no other option but to join the military. That’s why they keep lowering the standards to sign up.
SugarShane on March 11 at 11:58 a.m.
Funny how it got voted down. We will continue to spend 70 mil a day til we are bankrupt, oh wait that already happened. The military is comprised of the poorest members of our nation, so no shortfalls there. There is no clear way to achieve victory, thats what made Bushs little “Mission Accomplished” publicity stunt so laughable. I thought the mission was “get Osama”, but it seems we lost sight of that goal in favor of rewarding corporations with tax money. Bush was successful in bringing down the US, not Osama. Where are the war crimes tribunals when you need them. Some people need to hang for this.
BigE on March 11 at 3:29 p.m.
I come from a family of veterans, we are proud to be Americans.
My nephew spent 4 years in the Army, did his duty, served two tours in Iraq. He came home a different person, he killed people who he thought were going to him him, war.
He got out last May, was home for 9 months, was getting help to cope with the changes. He was re-activated by Obama, sent back to war, you know what he told me. “It’s only 400 days Uncle Ben” As we speak our men and women are fighting for………..tell me so I know.
horse_feathers on March 11 at 4:00 p.m.
Just listen to all the conspiracy theories.
Just because your paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.