Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s firing for disrespecting his civilian leaders has stirred discontent in Congress about how the war in Afghanistan is being waged in Afghanistan. It could not come at a worse time, as money needed to pay for the war runs dry and lawmakers search for ways to pass $33 billion in supplemental funding for the effort.
The Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday will begin confirmation hearings for McChrystal’s replacement, Gen. David Petraeus, who is widely respected by lawmakers as the architect of the 2007 troop surge that stabilized Iraq. While senators will easily vote to confirm Petraeus, their counterparts in the House are struggling to find the money Petraeus will need to fully wage the Afghanistan troop surge, which is viewed as far less successful than the Iraq initiative.
“I think the majority of Democrats will vote against the defense supplemental,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a key member of the 80-plus liberal faction of the Democratic caucus.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he must get the funds by July 4 to avoid having to dip into other critical parts of the Pentagon budget.
But many Democrats who were already wary of voting for more war funds have solidified their opposition after reading the McChrystal expose in Rolling Stone magazine.
In the article, McChrystal’s staff described a war that is virtually unwinnable and one top aide even suggested that next year, when the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces is supposed to begin, the military may seek additional troops to step up the war, not wind it down.
“Until a full and complete explanation of these comments and views are presented to Congress, we believe that a vote by the House of Representatives on the administration’s request for a supplemental appropriation for the war in Afghanistan would be inappropriate,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that was signed by 25 Democrats and five Republicans.
The withdrawal date is a sticking point for Republicans like Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, who is the ranking member on Armed Services. McCain plans to use the Petraeus hearing to argue against a fixed deadline for a troop drawdown.
“The most important thing is that if the president continues to state that we are leaving in the middle of 2011, we cannot win,” McCain told The Washington Examiner. “That policy will not succeed because our enemy will just wait until we leave.”
The chairman of the panel, Carl Levin, D-Mich., disagreed.
“I think we have to stick with that July 2011 date because it is the only way to let the Afghans know that they have the responsibility to take over security for their own country and that this is not an open-ended commitment,” Levin told The Examiner.
But even some Democrats are uneasy about setting a date to begin an Afghan pullout, fearing it gives tactical advantages to the Taliban.
Petraeus met Thursday with House Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and ranking member Bill Young, R-Fla.
Dicks told The Examiner after the meeting that he wished President Obama had not announced the withdrawal date.
“It’s the beginning of the withdrawal depending on the conditions on the ground and I think that’s adequate,” Dicks said.
Some conservative lawmakers are likely to question Petraeus about the war’s rules of engagement, which some believe are too prohibitive and leave American troops vulnerable.
“I think they are holding their hands behind their backs,” said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. “The rules make no sense to me.
Erin Fischesser contributed to this report.
