House panel votes to constrain Afghan drawdown.

| July 16, 2020

It appears that Democrats and some Republicans did learn something from Barak Obama after all.  Because of the Obama administration’s disastrous decision of suddenly turning tail and running from a War Zone,  Congress has tied the hands of President Trump.


The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday to put roadblocks on President Trump’s ability to withdraw from Afghanistan, including requiring an assessment on whether any country has offered incentives for the Taliban to attack U.S. and coalition troops.The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendment, from Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), would require several certifications before the U.S. military can further draw down in Afghanistan.The amendment was approved 45-11.

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the No. 3 House Republican, argued the amendment “lays out, in a very responsible level of specificity, what is going to be required if we are going to in fact make decisions about troop levels based on conditions on the ground and based on what’s required for our own security, not based on political timelines.”

“And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority,” she added.

The amendment comes as Trump’s withdrawal deal with the Taliban remains precarious as high violence levels persist in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has said it is down to 8,600 troops, in line with the agreement to get to that level by mid-July. But military officials have insisted any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the ground that are not yet met, even as Trump pushes for a speedy withdrawal.

The amendment also comes amid a firestorm in Washington over intelligence showing a Russian military unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militias to kill U.S. and coalition service members in Afghanistan.

Among the amendment’s requirements is an assessment of whether any “state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives.”

The Obama administration seemed to have just turned tail and ran… there were no viable agreements with anyone.  But now…

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) framed the measure as particularly important in light of the revelations.

“There’s been bipartisan criticism of what a weak deal [Trump] got with the Taliban, a deal that is already falling apart,” Moulton said. “Now we learned that he was making this deal at the same time as there were bounties on the heads of American troops, American sons and daughters. We clearly need more oversight over what the president is doing in Afghanistan.”

Crow’s amendment would block funding to dip below 8,000 troops and then again to below 4,000 troops unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States.

It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty.

Never thought I would see the day Democrats joined forces with many Republicans to stop a President, that they all said would escalate War, from putting an end to a 20-year-old war.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a staunch Trump ally, argued the amendment would unfairly tie the administration’s hands.

“A great nation does not force the next generation to fight their wars, and that’s what we’ve done in Afghanistan,” Gaetz said. “I think the best day to have not had the war in Afghanistan was when we started it, and the next best day is tomorrow.”

“I don’t think there’s ever a bad day to end the war in Afghanistan,” he added. “Our generation is weary of this and tired of this.”

We most certainly should have gone to war in Afghanistan.  That War has been over for a long time.  I wish they would stop calling a civil occupation of a Police State… a war.

Maybe its just me but,  Congress seems a bit too  egar to shackle the arms of our current President while refusing to hold the previous one accountable for its failures.


Source: House panel votes to constrain Afghan drawdown, ask for assessment on ‘incentives’ to attack US troops | TheHill

Category: 2020 Election, Afghanistan, Donald Trump, I hate hippies, Liberals suck

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ChipNASA says:

    Let me help you with the logistical guidance….

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    Never thought I would see the day Democrats joined forces with many Republicans to stop a President, that they all said would escalate War, from putting an end to a 20-year-old war. – DHardin

    Ummm, well, if we don’t bring our people home there will only be ore dead and injured in the future. But since these butthead political animals are acting as a unit, the real question is: Since when are we the World’s policemen?

    I’m getting mixed messages out of this, y’know.

    • MI Ranger says:

      We started being the World’s Policeman around 1945. Europe went to war but couldn’t come up with a way to peacefully settle afterwards without making it worse. Then bad actors around the world started doing things, and we (the U.S.) realized it would start infringing on our perfect society. So we stuck our nose in again. Some might say our new Counter Terrorism efforts are just a front for Capitalistic proselytizing. However those people are likely just instigators for Socialist visionaries inserted to destabilize our democracy.
      Like it or not the United States is the world Police force. How much we leave up to the local and regional Police is up US and them!

  3. Skippy says:

    When it’s over it’s over
    Time to move on. we accomplished what we went there for
    a long time ago

  4. 26Limabeans says:

    Just fucking leave. Render all equipment unservicable and leave it.
    Massive airlift with all available assetts to secure it until the
    last soul has left the building. Get-the-fuck-out.

    • Thunderstixx says:

      Yep, total agreement.
      Too much shit going on there. Afghanistan is where kingdoms go to die….

    • Graybeard says:

      Could we leave all the stuff we cannot retrieve in one large warehouse, with an armed, timed MOAB inside?

      • 26Limabeans says:

        I was hoping for a destroy in place order.

        I once met the guy that took the last radio
        message from the Saigon MARS station.
        “closing station….destroying equipment…OUT”

        And don’t bring half the fucking population to
        America either.

  5. Sparks says:

    So I am sure a show of hands at the UN will reveal who is going to support the Taliban. That stuff works every time.

    Get us the hell out of there now and tell the Taliban “do what you will within your borders, export any of it anywhere within the influence of American concerns, and the bombings, without warning, will continue until behavior improves”.

    But then that would take balls on the part of Dems and Rhinos.

  6. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    The swamp absolutely will not allow the armed forces to win.

    The swamp absolutely will not allow them to leave, either.

    Drain the swamp Mr President.

  7. Charles says:

    Of course we should get out.

    Obama won the war years ago.

    That’s why he was awarded the Nobel Prize, right? Right?