AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ VETERANS NOT READY
TO SUPPORT OBAMA STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN
Usually supportive of administration, largest progressive veterans group in America has serious questions about future of War in Afghanistan following Obama speech
WASHINGTON -- Veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not ready to support the strategy for the war in Afghanistan, laid out by President Obama this evening, saying they had serious reservations and questions about it. The veterans of VoteVets.org, the largest progressive group of veterans in America, said that the strategy left unanswered too many questions regarding strain on the Armed Forces, and didn't address other issues that would help ensure that the entire mission wouldn't be put on the backs of the troops.
Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, "We have been supportive of every move the President has made since he was elected, and have supported an increased focus on Afghanistan since our inception, but given the serious questions that are unresolved, we aren't ready to support what he's laid out. First and foremost, we are always concerned about the strain on the American servicemember, and this plan leaves very big questions on that issue. We know that the President has carefully considered all the options presented to him, and doesn't take this decision lightly. We appreciate that. But before committing troops, he has to answer these questions."
The questions the group raised are as follows:
1. By deploying an additional 30k troops, without speeding up the departure from Iraq, our force will remain overstretched. How does the administration reconcile this issue?
* The administration has promised that each servicemember will receive appropriate "Dwell Time" (as much time home as deployed) and an end to stop loss. With the operational tempo set out by this strategy, it is hard to see how the administration can keep to that promise.
* Additionally, will this strategy mean a return to deployments longer than 12 months? Again, by simply shifting Iraq troops to Afghanistan, it is hard to see how deployment times don't go up again. We've seen a record rate of suicide in the Army, linked to longer and more frequent deployments, making this a top consideration.
* The troop increase will happen in just six months. At this rate, that doesn't match the troops coming home from Iraq. Where do these troops come from, and what does it leave to take care of any emergencies in Korea, Iran, or at home?
2. What increases in efforts can we expect from the State Department, CIA, other intelligence, diplomatic, and humanitarian arms of the US government?
o Is there increased sacrifice from other agencies equal to what the administration is putting on the troops? A counter-insurgency strategy, which the President has laid out, the engine of American foreign policy firing on all cylinders. Without increasing the commitment of other branches of American foreign policy, will we continue to see troops having to serve as negotiators, diplomats, and nation builders? They weren't trained for that, and it isn't right to place that responsibility on their shoulders.
3. Do we have a partner in Karzai, and are there guarantees that his government can be legitimized so we can leave?
o It has become clear that the Karzai government does not have the confidence of the people because of corruption. A trusted government is essential to any counter-insurgency strategy working, otherwise it becomes impossible to transition out. How does this plan address corruption issues, especially as it pertains to the central government gaining the confidence of the people in a way that doesn't make it seem that it is a puppet-regime just doing what the western nations want? If we cannot guarantee that, what does a counter-insurgency strategy really achieve that could not be done with a counter-terror strategy that relies on fewer troops?
Founded in 2006, VoteVets.org is the leading progressive, pro-military organization of veterans, dedicated to the destruction of terror networks around the world, with force when necessary. It primarily focuses on education and advocacy on issues of importance to the troops and veterans, and holding politicians accountable for their actions on these issues.
