Senate Votes for Quicker Afghanistan Withdrawal, in Non-Binding Amendment
The amendment is non-binding and doesn't specify what schedule US troops should follow. So, really, the vote is meaningless.
The Senate on Thursday voted overwhelmingly for an accelerated withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, after more than a decade of fighting in a war the Obama administration insists must continue beyond the much vaunted 2014 withdrawal date.
In a bipartisan vote, 62 in favor and 33 against, the Senate voted for an amendment to a defense policy bill to withdraw troops at a faster pace than the Obama administration has laid out. But the amendment is non-binding and doesn’t specify what schedule US troops should follow.
So, really, the vote is meaningless in terms of actual policy, reflecting the Senate’s utter refusal to make a stand on anything of significance. However, it does illustrate feelings of war-weariness, albeit in a way that avoids taking responsibility for foreign policy decisions.
The amendment’s chief sponsor, Sen. Jeff Merkley, spoke out against nation-building in Afghanistan, which he said had gone off track. ”It is time to end this war, end the longest war in United States history,” he said.
The Obama administration is in talks with the Kabul government to set an agreement that will govern the presence of at least 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan passed the supposed withdrawal date at the end of 2014.
“The goal here is an enduring presence therefore that will direct itself toward three important missions, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told reporters on Thursday.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
- Israel Authorizes Controversial New Settlements in Revenge for Palestine's UN Bid - November 30th, 2012
- Panetta: US Will Battle Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan for Years to Come - November 29th, 2012
- US Claims Still Hesitant to Directly Send Arms to Syrian Rebels - November 29th, 2012
- Netanyahu: Palestine Vote at UN 'Meaningless' - November 29th, 2012
- UN Votes in Favor of Upgrading Palestinian Status - November 29th, 2012
curmudgeonvt
November 30th, 2012 at 7:53 am
As almost all of the "important missions" that have been pursued by the US and it's puppies since 2002 have been ambiguous at best but mostly unstated and inferred. Is it possible that when SECDEF Panetta "told reporters" on the 29th that there were three important missions that would require a US presence for much longer than 2014 a "reporter" might have actually asked him to explain what those three important missions might be? Perhaps? In John's piece yesterday, the missions, beyond the vaunted "counter-terrorism" effort that has been mostly ineffective over the past 10 years, were not reported – maybe not even defined by Panetta.
It's time a journalist – if they still exist – started asking the "whys" of our continued presence there – and not to accept unfounded blanket-type statements such as have been offered in the past (and still). Or is the 4th estate truly dead?
Michael
November 30th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Get out of all foreign occupied Soverign lands NOW!