Senator Lee to President Obama: The Objectives in Afghanistan Have Been Met

senators ask president to remove soliders from afghanistan

WASHINGTON D.C. – Due to concerns that President Obama was considering changing the timetable that would bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) sent the President a letter urging him to stick to his promise.

“The Senators want to signal that they support the original plan and have called on the President to follow thorough on that pledge,” said Emily Bennion, Press Secretary for Lee’s office.

“U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Udall (D-NM) and 24 other senators sent a letter to President Obama today calling for a shift in strategy in Afghanistan ahead of next month’s announced deadline to begin an accelerated transition to Afghan security forces,” according to a press release sent to media yesterday. “In the letter, the senators urge the President to use the deadline as an opportunity to begin a ‘sizable and sustained’ drawdown of troops that puts the U.S. on a path toward removing all regular combat troops from the country.”

According to the letter, the senators believe that the primary objectives for deploying U.S. troops into Afghanistan have largely been met, including the removal of Osama bin Laden from power and disrupting terrorists networks.

“The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits,” the letter stated. “It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan.”

Email jwatkins@stgnews.com

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2011, all rights reserved.

The full copy of the letter is below:

June 15, 2011

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our strong support for a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.

In 2001 the United States rightfully and successfully intervened in Afghanistan with the goals of destroying al Qaeda’s safe haven, removing the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursuing those who planned the September 11 attacks on the United States. Those original goalshave been largely met and today, as CIA Director Leon Panetta noted last June, “I think at most, we’re looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less” al Qaeda members remaining in Afghanistan.

In addition, over the past few years, U.S. forces have killed or captured dozens of significant al Qaeda leaders. Then, on May 2, 2011, American Special Forces acting under your direction located and killed Osama bin Laden. The death of the founder of al Qaeda is a major blow that further weakens the terrorist organization.

From the initial authorization of military force through your most recent State of the Union speech, combating al Qaeda has always been the rationale for our military presence in Afghanistan. Given our successes, it is the right moment to initiate a sizable and sustained reduction in forces, with the goal of steadily redeploying all regular combat troops.

There are those who argue that rather than reduce our forces, we should maintain a significant number of troops in order to support a lengthy counter-insurgency and nation building effort. This is misguided. We will never be able to secure and police every town and village in Afghanistan. Nor will we be able to build Afghanistan from the ground up into a Western-style democracy.

Endemic corruption in Afghanistan diverts resourcesintended to build roads, schools, and clinics, and some of these funds end up in the hands of the insurgents. Appointments of provincial and local officials on the basis of personal alliances and graft leads to deep mistrust by the Afghan population. While it is a laudable objective to attempt to build newcivic institutions in Afghanistan, this goal does not justify the loss of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Instead of continuing to be embroiled in ancient local and regional conflicts in Afghanistan, we must accelerate the transfer of responsibility for Afghanistan’s development to the Afghan people and theirgovernment. We should maintain our capacity to eliminate any new terrorist threats, continue to train the Afghan National Security Forces, and maintain our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. However, these objectives do not require the presence of over 100,000 American troops engaged in intensive combat operations.

Mr. President, according to our own intelligence officials, al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan, and, as the strike against bin Laden demonstrated, we have the capacity to confront ourterrorist enemies with a dramatically smaller footprint. The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan.

We urge you to follow through on the pledge you made to the American people to begin the redeployment of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this summer, and to do so in a manner that is sizable and sustained, and includes combat troops as well as logistical and support forces.

We look forward to working with you to pursue a strategy in Afghanistan that makes our nation stronger and more secure.

Sincerely,

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Sen. RonWyden (D-OR)

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

Posted in News

1 Comment

  • gary June 16, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Max Baucus is a corrupt politician. Actually, Max Baucus migt be a nice guy but the unions control the strings that control Max Baucus.
    He is a puppet, a dumb face with nothing behind it.
    The Truth – Montana
    http://www.identitynoise.com/blog

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.