Kyl wants no exit strategy as Obama expected to announce 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan

By David Edwards and Gavin Dahl
Sunday, November 29th, 2009 -- 11:24 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

afghanistansoldiergundust Kyl wants no exit strategy as Obama expected to announce 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan"Talk of an exit strategy is exactly the wrong way to go," Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The Senate's second-most powerful Republican wants President Barack Obama to defer to the generals' wishes in Afghanistan without announcing a strategy to end the war.

On Tuesday December 1, Obama will deliver a major Afghanistan speech at West Point, nine days before picking up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.

"As I understand it we're going to go with 30 to 35 thousand American troops," Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) said on the program. "We're going to try and make up the difference with NATO. They're probably not as good and effective as American troops but I think its good that we have some burden-sharing. After all, the American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for this whole thing if our allies are wiling to step up and do their part."

British PM Gordon Brown said Saturday that countries backing Afghanistan's government are going to demand that it meet specific security benchmarks, outlining a plan to let foreign troops gradually hand control to local forces. Brown is expected to announce plans to send 500 more British troops next week.

The U.S. has approximately 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. NATO members have approximately 55,000 troops there. According to reporter Jeremy Scahill there are even more U.S. contractors (armed and unarmed combined) in Afghanistan than U.S. troops.

Story continues below...

According to the Washington Post, as many as 9,000 U.S. Marines will move into the country next as part of Obama's escalation of the eight-year-old war. They will double the size of the U.S. force in the southern province of Helmand and will provide a critical test for disputed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's struggling government and fraying Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy.

Bayh and Kyl stuck to the talking points for the most part on Sunday morning, but Kyl brought up Vietnam and Bayh mentioned the cost of the war, suggesting there will be criticism from all sides immediately following Obama's speech. Just one day earlier, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told Fox News, "This war is undermining our nation."

"35,000 new troops? That's going to cost $35 billion more a year," he said. "Where are we going to find that money? Who's going to finance this? You're going to tell the taxpayers we're going to borrow more money from China so we can fight a war in Afghanistan? Come on!"

Obama's speech is expected to put his alliance with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to the test as well. House members may introduce a Resolution of Disapproval to counter Obama's plan. Pelosi and the President met privately last week as Obama concluded his deliberations on Afghanistan, according to The Hill.

This video is from Fox's Fox News Sunday, broadcast Nov. 29, 2009.



Download video via RawReplay.com

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • larrymo
    Un-flipping real. Now, the GOP is opposed to plans for withdrawal?

    If the Democratic leadership announced support for Oxygen, the GOP would immediately oppose air.

    They exist solely to gum up the works, and have NOTHING to offer.
    Zip.
  • kucinich2012
    Am, I missing something? Peace prize + more troops = WHAT EXACTLY?

    Oh, yeah. More poverty for the three - job workers; more dead in Afghanistan for no reason; more homelessness created; more chance for terrorism in the U.S.; more foreign nations asking WTF. You can add to the list....
  • lorn
    Clever move by war loving Democrats.

    Taken alone, the simple issue of Obama once again escalating the immoral occupation of Afghanistan by another 30,000 troops is bad news.
    It is yet another reason why his Bush3 label fits like a glove.

    But wait..........lets package this Bush like escalation of an insane criminal war with something even more violent and hate filled.
    Lets find some irrelevant back bench nut case (McCain often fills this role) to make a statement so ridiculous it borders on comical.

    Then all the devotees of the Obama cult of hero worship can show up and take pot shots at the Republican nut case while they once a gain ignore the crimes of their messiah.
  • Savantster
    .
    Well, except, it was Bush who kept saying we can't mention exit strategies because it implies we'll leave some day, and that would encourage the terrorists.. Dems (to a greater degree) have consistently said "we want to know what the conditions for 'victory' are, and we want to know your plan for ending this thing".. which is a _reasonable_ position to take if you "must" be in a conflict.

    now, the need for the conflict can be debated, but the _fact_ that we're there means we should probably be talking about when and how we're getting out... the perpetual war mongers (read: 99% of the GOP and only 25% of the Dems) don't want to talk of getting out, they just want to keep the defense contracts well funded.

    Saying Obama is just like Bush on this topic is to ignore that Bush said "shut up and kill stuff!!" and Obama is saying "look, if you want to escalate this conflict, I want to know your plan for ending it". Those are not even on the same planet.

    The next level of the thinking would be "why are we there, and do we really need to be there?". That question isn't being fielded much, and Obama seems to think we need to be there. Most of us out here don't think so, but, then, we're not privy to the Intel. With all the deceit and shielding our "ruling masters" do, we might well need to be in Afghanistan (I don't believe we do).
    .
  • lorn
    I stand by my Obama is the same as Bush views. However you point out a legitimate difference between them, the only one......

    "Saying Obama is just like Bush on this topic is to ignore that Bush said "shut up and kill stuff!!" and Obama is saying "look, if you want to escalate this conflict........"

    Right you nailed it savantski!
    Bush said........
    Obama is saying.......


    Of course you are correct. Their rhetoric, lies, talking points and excuses are very different. TALK TALK TALK.

    Their actions of killing innocent women and children in the middle east with our billion dollar weapons systems are where they are the same.

    They kill with the same impunity, coldness and hypocrisy. They talk different.
    What was your point again?
  • chabuka
    Funny how Republicans like Kyl, Cantor, Boehner, McCain are all about more, indefinite war and paying for it by borrowing (from China..or Japan..or even Russia) or raising taxes indefinately...no objection what so ever for a huge deficit including war and conquest for oil, resources, empires...from the GOP...but something for the American people...like health reform, financial reform, credit card reform, jobs..any thing to help the middle-class....well according to the GOP thats just insane and a "cost" we can't just afford.....(their plan..give tax breaks to the super wealthy...like the "defense contractors, Corporations, Wall Street, International Companies, etc...and let it "trickle down"..just like it has for the last thirty years...its worked great so far hasn't it...?
  • freedumb
    Be patient,wealth will trickle down any time now...Besides,borrowing/spending to benefit other nations by pentagon/state dept contracts=bringing democracy.
    Spending for the benefit of U.S. citizenry=evil "socialism".
  • Talis13
    Of course the cons want war without paying for it.
    The plan is to bankrupt the government and then drown it.
    They have not hidden this agenda.
  • airjackie
    After listening to the US Commission hearing with evidence of how the US/UK planned the Iraq invasion a year before 9/11 and how Rummy refuse to capture Bid Ladan in 2002 it's clear the Republicans want to continue to waste taxpayers money for Karzai, Halliburton and Contractors. Notice how Senator Kyl has the answer to something President Obama hasn't announced yet. The Taliban were the guest to the USA by Gov. Bush, what happen? Now the Military Families know their sons/daughters didn't have to die but were lied to by the GOP and Media. Senator Kyl never served in the US Military but used the deferments during the Vietnam War which makes since why he's doesn't care about soldiers. Kyl wouldn't even have his children serve the Military as Kyl's father never served either.
  • chrisinva
    Kyl's comments are good news for the Left. He demonstrates that the shrinking GOP will stick with the neocons who killed its majorities in 2006 and 2008. Perpetuating the endless Bush wars is insane, but the GOP insists on out-warring Obama. Surreal.

    They must have a death wish -- but unfortunately, it's the young who die in the old men's wars. A lot of trough-dwellers (in bipartisan fashion) are making millions on these wars.

    I think it's third party time. War only to defend our country. Small Government that leaves us alone. A stable currency, more jobs, fewer political hacks. Both major parties are corrupt.
  • bayside1
    Kyl of the C street gang....Big surprise Not............
  • aerows
    Senator Kyl (R-Humana), the representative for big business, never met a huge defense budget he didn't like.
  • RadicalCaveman
    Getting out by 2017 is too radical for Kyl?
  • mrkrab
    An exit strategy? There aren't even any clear objectives for this boneheaded fiasco. Congressional heads might explode if they had to wrap their brains around all that at once.
  • bruman
    Kyl is mentally ill. Is nobody going to help that man?
  • donofcali
    "We must pursue a perpetual war strategy." Thank you Jon. You're a plutocrats dream boy...
  • Attacks by al-Qaeda against innocent civilians is expected to increase as the war in Afghanistan is expanded. Swift and severe punishment is necessary for those that endanger the lives of the innocent. The owner of a weapon found hidden in the saddle of his camel must be executed immediately. The camel must then be escorted to a compound where it will be turned over to the Kabul government. Camels have been turned into the Cavalry of al-Qaeda, and they are massing for a charge against Kabul. Unfortunately many animals will be killed before the war is ended.
  • freedumb
    Yes,Al Qaeda is very slippery.Their boxcutters,videos,jungle gyms,fireproof passports, ability to make military grade nano thermite while hidding in caves and their ability to evade real trials (yemen,indonesia) and evade capture in that magical "tribal region" makes them unstoppable. That is why we must burn the Constitution,print money for endless war and become a authoritarian right wing military dictatorship.It just so happens that Alqaeda seems to be everywhere that has resources to exploit for corporations and strategic geographic locations.This is just a bonus.
    Pray that Sara Palin and big daddy government/contractors can protect us because "they hate us for our freedom".Many innocent animals and humans must die,but thats called collateral damage.Bombing mud huts protects our freedom! Praise Jebus!
  • Without the camel al-Qaeda cannot transport their weapons. Removing the
    camel from Afghanistan will stabilize that god forsaken nation.
  • freedumb
    We must stabilize that nation with schools,roads and bridges...and then bomb them! . We must continue this spending for our protection even though 20% of construction funds go to the Taliban/Al Qaeda.As well,Karzis' brother,the top opium dealer, is on the CIA 's payrole.
    You see now? They have plenty of money for weapons in addition to the ones the CIA has already supplied.That way we can keep at war so we can stabilize
    them.It's a little confusing,I know.
    Don't worry about the camels.Al qaeda agents have a magical way of getting where they need to go with or without them.Just look at how they entered the US w/ multiple entry passports with out filling out their visa applications properly.Or look at how we have super advanced satellites that can read news papers from space,yet they can't find a 6'3 guy in kidney failure in that magical tribal region.Even while on watch lists they were able to come here.They can't be stopped,there eeeeverywhere and nooowhere!
blog comments powered by Disqus