Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Afghanistan Push Meets Resistance —From Democrats

Levin, Pelosi object to troop buildup; Obama weighs options

By Matt Cantor,  Newser Staff

Posted Sep 11, 2009 9:14 AM CDT

(Newser) – Support for the war in Afghanistan is dwindling among Democrats as President Obama mulls increasing US involvement in the region, the New York Times reports. Ahead of an expected request for more troops from the US commander in the country, the chair of the Senate armed services committee says he’s opposed to the idea until the US can more quickly build Afghanistan’s own forces.

Carl Levin holds that the Afghan Army, which aims to reach 134,000 troops by next year, should expand to 240,000 by 2012, with a simultaneous expansion of police forces. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi predicts a struggle for the president if he looks to boost troop numbers. “I don’t think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress,” the House speaker says.

Afghan army soldiers and police tour the site where villagers reportedly died when American jets bombed fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban, outside Kunduz, Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 5, 2009.
Afghan army soldiers and police tour the site where villagers reportedly died when American jets bombed fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban, outside Kunduz, Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 5, 2009.   (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
President Barack Obama walks from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington,Friday, Aug. 21, 2009, to talk about the Afghanistan election.
President Barack Obama walks from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington,Friday, Aug. 21, 2009, to talk about the Afghanistan election.   (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, left, commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, visits the site where villagers reportedly died when US jets bombed Taliban-hijacked fuel tankers, Sept. 5, 2009.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, left, commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, visits the site where villagers reportedly died when US jets bombed Taliban-hijacked fuel tankers, Sept. 5, 2009.   (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 8 comments
justme
Sep 12, 2009 1:15 AM CDT
We gave up on Afghanistan once before. That allowed the fundamentalists to take over. They built their camps and planned their attacks. What part of that should we repeat?
emptycalm
Sep 11, 2009 5:17 AM CDT
oh great so all that money was supposed to go somewhere else, even though i has yet to do so, can just be sent instead to the military. The war party rejoices!
godawgs
Sep 11, 2009 4:58 AM CDT
@odo no we do have the resources and the capabilty to take care of business. We have over 600 billion in stimulus money that isn't doing anything, and if we can just come up iwth 500 billion in waste in Medicare, I am sure that we can find money to ensure that some crazy folks don't get their hands on nuclear weapons. @ford we just use the money that i mentioned above to finance the actions in Afghan. The 600 billion was already part of the budget, and they President's numbers had factored in like 50 billion a month to be spent in Iraq up until 2018 I think. So there is the cost.

More Newser Stories

US Drones Return to Hit Rescuers, Funerals

Hatred Fueling Afghan Army Attacks on Allied Troops

Obama Considering Scaling Back Afghan Mission

Obama Right to Stop Petraeus' 'Moby Dick' War

France Backs Obama's Afghan Drawdown, Plans Its Own


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne