Left criticizes Obama Afghanistan decision
Toolbox
By DANIEL BARLOW VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: December 2, 2009
MONTPELIER – James Leas thinks President Obama is making a "big mistake."
"The time has come to recognize that Mr. Obama is now the war president," said the Burlington attorney and anti-war activist. "If we want to oppose the war, we can't rely on him to end it."
Vermonters expressed unease Tuesday with Obama's plans to send upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as the ideals of a state with an active peace movement confronts the war policies of the country's first Democratic president in nearly a decade.
The debate over an increased troop presence in Afghanistan comes as Vermont prepares to send to that country its largest National Guard deployment since World War II. About 1,500 troops from the Green Mountain State are expected to arrive in Afghanistan early in 2010.
When the United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, few expected it would be a conflict still raging more than eight years later. At the time, most Americans – including many Vermonters – supported the war. Even Gov. Howard Dean, then serving his last few months in office, praised President Bush's handling of the war.
The death toll of the conflict, its fiscal costs and war fatigue have changed that perception. In a CBS poll released this week, just 32 percent of the country supported Obama's plans to send more troops and 39 percent opposed it (20 percent say the troop level should be kept the same).
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Putney, has spent the last month raising money to help bring Vermont National Guard members home for the holidays. A strong supporter of Obama in the 2008 election, Shumlin said he has a "great respect" for the Vermonters heading to Afghanistan next year. But that doesn't mean he's happy with Obama's war policy.
"I oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan," Shumlin said Tuesday afternoon, just hours before Obama was scheduled to make his troop increase pitch to the country. "I'm worried that this is a conflict that cannot be solved militarily and that victory will continue to remain elusive."
Perhaps no Vermonter knows more about Afghanistan than Peter Galbraith – the part-time Townshend resident who, until early this fall, served as the United Nations' top official there. He was allegedly fired for blowing the whistle on election fraud in that country.
Galbraith praised Obama's diplomacy on dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan, but added that the president faces a dilemma because of the allegations of corruption surrounding Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. The chance that the new mission would be successful is severely hampered by the political realities of the country's leadership, he said.
"President Obama was dealt a bad hand," Galbraith said. "The time to fix this problem was 2002, not 2009 or 2010."
Vermont's congressional delegation has a mixed response to Obama's plans. Sen. Patrick Leahy was one of the lawmakers who met with the president at the White House Tuesday before the big speech. Leahy declined comment on the policy until after Tuesday night's speech.
Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent, expressed hope for a troop decline in Afghanistan when Obama announced he was considering a change in strategy. Sanders told ABC News late last month that he would have a "real problem" supporting a troop increase.
U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, was elected on an anti-war wave in 2006. He said Tuesday that he plans to listen to Obama's speech, but said if the "troop surge were up for a vote tomorrow, I would vote against it."
Welch, who visited Pakistan earlier this year, said Obama has done the "right analysis, but came to the wrong conclusion." Al-Qaida's numbers are now extremely low in the region as the organization has dispersed across the world, he said, and increasing a military footprint in Afghanistan is not the solution.
"I think we have to ask ourselves what the sustainable policy is," Welch said. "I agree with the military commandeers who favor a policy of containment."
Vermont Republicans are mostly staying out of the national debate over Afghanistan troop levels. Steve Larrabee, the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said Tuesday that decision is better left to "the military, the president and congressional leaders."
"The Republican Party's focus right now is supporting our men and women in our armed forces and their families," Larrabee said.
The Vermont Peace & Justice Center opposed the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and continues to do so today – although many members are keeping an open mind and will listen to Obama's speech Tuesday night, according to executive director Nancy Lynch.
"I'm not surprised by his decision, but I am disappointed," she said. "I'll be listening tonight … but it is clear now that President Obama is very much a centrist."
She said she would not be surprised to see Vermont's anti-war community rise up and protest the troop surge as they did for similar war policies under the Bush administration.
"I suspect there will be a lot of disappointed people tomorrow," she said.
Despite the varied opinions of the war, many Vermonters stress a common theme: Even if they don't support the troop increase, or even the underlining conflict, they have 100 percent faith in the country's troops who are sent there.
Rep. Mike Fisher, D-Lincoln, a prominent anti-war voice at the Statehouse, said Tuesday that he has "deep questions about the policy decision made by President Obama in Afghanistan."
"There are no questions about the level of support I have for our men and women who serve," Fisher said.
daniel.barlow@rutlandherald.com
48