< Back to Front Page Text size +

McGovern fights Afghan war funding

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor May 13, 2009 05:00 PM


Former Marine Cpl. Rick Reyes talks about why he's lobbying
against sending more troops to Afghanistan. (By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff)

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Representative James McGovern of Massachusetts, who has launched the only effort in the US House to oppose President Obama's plans for the Afghan war, received an unexpected boost of support today from a group of Afghan and Iraqi war veterans, who raced around Capitol Hill lobbying for his bill.

Congress is expected on Thursday to swiftly approve the $94.2 billion war funding bill, which would support the 21,000 additional combat troops and military trainers that Obama plans to deploy. But McGovern's bill, which he plans to file Thursday, would require the Pentagon to come up with an exit strategy by the end of the year.

The veterans, who are part of a small but growing group of Americans who oppose the Afghan war, traveled to Washington this week, shadowed by the Brave New Foundation, a California-based nonprofit film company that produces social justice documentaries and has launched a campaign called Rethink Afghanistan.

Realizing that it could not stop the supplemental, the group focused instead on getting more support for McGovern's bill.

"Without an exit strategy, then the mission is doomed to fail," said Jake Diliberto, who fought in Afghanistan in 2001 as a Marine. Diliberto, who said he is now getting his master's degree in ethics from Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said that he strongly believed in the mission, but that the US presence has grown extremely unpopular among Afghans, as civilian casualties have increased.

Former Marine Corporal Rick Reyes, who also served in Afghanistan shortly after the US invasion, said he never thought he would lobby Congress. But by midafternoon, he had met with representatives from 20 offices. The group planned to fan out and meet with 100 more.

"So far the response has been positive, but you never know how they will vote," said Reyes, who believes that the United States was made less safe by the operations in Afghanistan. He said his team was ordered to break down doors and beat people who later turned out to be innocent.

Still, many members of Congress are reluctant to question a war that is directly linked to an attack on the United States, not to mention a popular president.

Representative Raul M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who chairs the Progressive Congressional Caucus and shares skepticism about the troop increase, told the veterans that their message is still a hard sell.

"I think there is a sense that there is no other option," he said, adding that people routinely ask him "'What do we do if we don't do this?' "

Grijalva told the vets that an atmosphere of fear of opposing the president has permeated Capitol Hill over the past eight years. But he said he has not faced much backlash for his anti-war stance, despite the fact that 15 percent of his constituents are veterans.

"I support Barack very much but I think sometimes we tell our friends and colleagues that we have to part ways," he said.

But so far, the only member of Congress to introduce legislation to restrain Obama's actions on Afghanistan is McGovern, a Worcester Democrat and an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war. (Click here to read the bill.)

So far, 60 members of Congress have already signed onto the bill, which McGovern opted to file as stand-alone piece of legislation, not linked to the supplemental.

"After 8 years, he is getting a sinking feeling that we are getting in deeper and deeper into Afghan without any idea how we are going to get out," said Michael Mershon, a spokesman for McGovern. "He feels very strongly that no matter who the president is, or whether he has a 'D' or an 'R' next to his name, if you believe our military efforts need to have a clearly defined strategy, then that's what you have to fight for."

  • CommentComment
  • EmailEmail
.

I thought this was the "good" war?

"After 8 years, he is getting a sinking feeling that we are getting in deeper and deeper into Afghan without any idea how we are going to get out,"

I thought we got out when we won.

Are we there yet mommy?

Posted by Craig May 13, 09 05:24 PM
.

So basically they want us to stop the war we should have finished before Iraq.... great idea. Lets stop fighting the country that help attacked us during 9/11. smucks

Posted by Thanos73 May 13, 09 05:26 PM
.

I thought Afghanistan was the right place to be fighting AQ according to the leftists. (Never mind how many of them our troops killed in Iraq after they came calling after Saddam and his government fell). Now, we have a low level marine who left the service and a bunch of pacificts who think we should cede Afghanistan to AQ and the Taliban and nothing bad will come of it.

When an enemy declares war against you it is only when one of you surrenders that the conflict is over.

Oh, how come the Glob didn't bother to interview anyone on the other side of this issue? Obviously the writer has some sympathies for the cause.

Posted by rob May 13, 09 05:30 PM
.

Yeah you said it, when we win we leave no exceptions. thats just my opinion.

Posted by Micah May 13, 09 05:43 PM
.

Craig,

This is the right place to fight. It's just that you cannot win by using force alone, and we did such a poor job in Afghanistan politically that it will take a long time to fix it.

Remember, Afghanistan thoroughly defeated the Soviet's Red Army - USSR was much closer and threw more conventional forces at them.

We must win that battle politically and economically, and we are instead focusing on sending more troops...

Posted by HBX May 13, 09 05:44 PM
.

I wish I knew what constituted winning in these wars. Destroying the Taliban? Destroying non-Taliban insurgents, Rebuilding Afghanistan, Rebuilding Pakistan's border province, Destroying fanatical Islam? Destroying Islam?

Posted by Jim May 13, 09 05:45 PM
.

"he strongly believed in the mission, but that the US presence has grown extremely unpopular among Afghans, as civilian casualties have increased."

Sounds familiar to the same arguments that I heard a couple years ago...

Is it about doing what's popular or what's right? A popular saying in Afghan is, "The American's have wrist watches, but we have the time." Not saying I know the answer, but quitting because its unpopular has never worked well for the country that was hosting the conflict. Either finish the fight or don't start it (whether or not we started it is another discussion completely).

Posted by J-Man May 13, 09 05:45 PM
.

It would have been nice to have killed Bin Laden- but since Bush and Dick really didn't want to do that he got away forever. Killing hundreds of villagers every month isn't helping anyone. Listen to the veterans and get the f@$! outta dodge.

Posted by Dan May 13, 09 05:49 PM
.

I am so grateful to hear from Senator McGovern. He has always been in the forefront of civilized behavior between nations and although certainly contributed his time and energy during WW II, realizes the futility of what we have become engaged in in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We cannot afford financially or personally, the high costs of continuing the 2 wars that have drained our finances, lost so many young men and women,especially when we have many critical needs on the domestic front presently. And we have accomplished nothing worthwhile in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted by Pearl Volkov May 13, 09 05:52 PM
.

When are we getting out of Germany? Okinawa? The Philippines? Cuba? England? South Korea? We've been in the Philippines for 111 years now, and I don't see anyone screaming to leave any time soon. I'm confused about this whole thing about exit strategies. If I remember my history correctly, the exit strategy in war is to stay until the other side surrenders and the area is pacified. You want to make friends and win hearts and minds in afganistan? Do what you can to pacify the area as quickly as possible, not drag it out by limiting and half-assing it.

This is what happens when all we do is elect lawyers. All they know is yelling until no one wins and everyone loses.

Posted by Mike P. May 13, 09 05:52 PM
.

If Obama is afraid to release photos of US torture, then the photos must be bad. Did we let the Nazis cover up what they did--because people would be disgusted and angry at them? No. We can't cover up our crimes either.
If we don't bring our war criminals to justice, somebody else will. And if we try to hide what they did, we will incriminate ourselves and WE will endanger our troops.
If we are afraid for our troops, we should bring them home. We have no right to be in Afghanistan in the first place. We invaded Afghanistal. And Iraq.

Posted by bert hornback May 13, 09 05:52 PM
.

Hey Craig, you sound like a tough friggin kid. How many tours you serve?

Posted by Dan May 13, 09 05:55 PM
.

Very glib, Craig. Please define terms. What does winning mean? How many innocent villagers will be collateral damaged before their relatives turn en masse against the "good guys"? 'twould be nice to have simple answers.

Posted by Frank May 13, 09 05:57 PM
.

Funny how Iraq and Afghanistan were "criminal wars" against humanity, and on and on when Bush was in charge; now that Obama's butt is in a bind, there's not
a sound out of the outraged leftists! All you phony peace-loving lefties DO know that he's sending 50,000 more troops to Afghanistan, don't you? And Iraq won't wind down until August 31, 2010. To hear him during the campaign, it looked like Obama would be out of there before lunchtime....DUH.

Posted by Mike LaMoy May 13, 09 06:06 PM
.

Iraq is where civilization began and is a real country. The was a chance that it could have been changed into a democracy. I doubt it now.
Alexander the great, the Huns, The British Empire, and the Solviet empire tried to passify Afganistan with no luck.
Anything other than Special forces, preditors and aircraft is a waste of money and human life.
If they send kids to fight in that meatgrinder, the least they can do is give them proper equiptment.
If the taxpayers can pay for Aidens sex change, they can buy the soldiers a good bulletproof vest.,

Posted by 57-states May 13, 09 06:06 PM
.

It sounds like McGovern has a new start-up business.
Selling white flags!

Posted by ed p May 13, 09 06:07 PM
.

I appreciate the perspective of the vets against more warring in Afghanistan. They were there and saw the reality of it. Maybe it's time to reevaluate the whole picture in the Middle East. Everything has changed since our occupation of Iraq--especially in Pakistan, Iran and Gaza. The wishes of the Afghan people need to be respected. Although they are not a cohesive group, many of them know what devastation has befallen Iraq with the USA on its side. They are tired of war. Can't we make (or buy) enough friends in the area to expose Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders?

Posted by Francie Taylor May 13, 09 06:23 PM
.

Obama is becoming more like Dubya every day.
Sterling Greenwood/Aspen Free Press

Posted by AspenFreePress May 13, 09 06:39 PM
.

HBX,

I know about force and the use of NGO's and other incentives (i.e. viagra for tribal cheifs and swords for tribal leaders). Afghanistan did not thoutoughly defeat the Soviets. The Soviets helped defeat themselves with their command and control structure, that the CIA told the Afghani's to exploit. Who gave the Afghani's Stinger missles? Troops, can do more than fire a gun.

Posted by Craig May 13, 09 06:43 PM
.

Yes, this is the good war, because a Democrat is in the whitehouse. It seems that when Bush drops bombs on civilians we call it murder. It seems when Obama does it, it is called something else. This should be a comfort to the dead women and children, I am sure!

Isn't it amazing that suddenly the liberal anti-war protesters are not protesting anymore? Seems people are still dying, civilians are still dying, but now the dying is OK. Becuase the president is a liberal, just like them!

Posted by Heather May 13, 09 06:50 PM
.

Let's get serious about this. Yes, Obama pledged to refocus our military efforts on Afghanistan when he was running for office. But he's a smart man, capable of rethinking his positions, unlike his mentally-challenged predecessor. Congressman McGovern's trying to present an alternate solution and is actually doing Obama a favor, because however much Obama may say he wants to hear all opinions, what he's mostly getting is cheers from grateful Democrats, many of whom would not have gotten elected without Obama's coattails. So let's give three cheers for Congressman McGovern and let's hope many others join the dialogue.

Posted by Wright Salisbury May 13, 09 07:27 PM
.

Did anyone else notice that all the name calling in these comments comes from the right? It will be impossible for this country to survive if we are unable to have civil discourse. We should discount any "thoughts" containing the words conservative or liberal. My idea of conservative may be your idea of liberal. Those terms are probably the most ill-defined in the English language. We are all Americans. Fearmongering and hatred are not represented in the Constitution of the USA and, come to think of it, neither are liberals or conservatives.

Posted by Francie Taylor May 13, 09 09:13 PM
.

I voted for Obama but am not liking some of his stances. A) Stop funding Pakistan. They are in cohoots with the Taliban. They will milk our tax dollars as much as possible. They created the frankenstein mess, now let them get out. If we're concerned about nukes, we will forcibly take control of their nuclear programme, and let them dig themselves out of the hole they created in aligning their Intelligence ISI agency with terrorist Islamic organizations like Taliban, Laskhar e Toiba, Jaish e Mohammed, Harkat al Unsar, the list goes on and on....

B) Why is Obama not releasing evidence regarding the tortures in Gitmo? If human rights violations occurred, if torture occured, we must uncover the truth, regardless of its implications.

Posted by David May 13, 09 09:31 PM
.

Pearl Volkov,
"I am so grateful to hear from Senator McGovern. He has always been in the forefront of civilized behavior between nations and although certainly contributed his time and energy during WW II, realizes the futility of what we have become engaged in in Iraq and Afghanistan."

McGovern was born November 20, 1959 and therefore couldn't have contributed anything "during WW II"!

My guess is that McGovern is positioning himself to be the ultra-liberal candidate for Ted Kennedy's Senatorial seat.

Posted by REMITROM May 13, 09 10:43 PM
.

Congrats to Mr McGovern who is willings to forget about polls and do what's right when it counts! Peace is cheap so lets stop before it's another Iraq and bring that $$ back to the US.

Posted by jack May 13, 09 11:09 PM
.

This is supposed to be the 'Good' war. Let's get BL and the ELQ, then go home.

Posted by wishing May 14, 09 12:25 AM
.

How can congress approve any war without a clearly defined exit strategy and a steadfast commitment to that strategy? The cyclical ignorance of our policy makers and the popular attitude of the American public is growing intolerable and unsustainable. How many blank checks are we going to write for unnecessary wars thousand of miles away while we accumulate an insurmountable debt? We want to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq while our own country's infrastructure crumbles and is outshined by almost every other industrial nation. We want to provide basic services to foreigners that we do not understand while a quarter of our own population has no health care, millions are in debt and unable to afford the means to pursue and secure their rightful liberty and happiness. Its time to rethink our role in the world and our governments role to its own people. Good luck trying to convince the public of a war in Iraq that costs over a trillion dollars. Do the math on what that costs every citizen and then add the irreparable human cost and see how popular and patriotic the war is. Peace is patriotic and supporting and serving all of our own people before any foreigners should not even be a cchoice.

Posted by Steve May 14, 09 01:06 AM
.

What "War in Afghanistan?"
DId the Afghans attack the US?
No.
Did the Taliban attack the US?
No.

al Queda attacked the US.

So find them, punish them, bin Laden and company.

This is insane.

Thank you, Jim.


Posted by Greg Shea May 14, 09 02:15 AM
.

I'm a "liberal anti-war protester" and believe me, we are still protesting the wars and occupations under Obama and will continue. Afghanistan is not a "good war." There are no good wars. And we can't "stay until we win," because nobody knows what "winning" is. If you expect a country, a continent, or a religion to lay down and say "Here. You're right. Take our oil. Take whatever you want and choose our leaders for us," you are insane. But that's what our government (the same one that's giving all our money to the banks) is trying to do.

Posted by David Spero May 15, 09 01:29 PM
.

please tired
hearing of war if they would do good there i understand but i love my brave canadian soldiers but i want them back home with there family ss my mom and dad was in world war 2 on d_day i will never vote again ty prime minister.

Posted by norman June 8, 09 08:57 PM
.

please tired
hearing of war if they would do good there i understand but i love my brave canadian soldiers but i want them back home with there family ss my mom and dad was in world war 2 on d_day i will never vote again ty prime minister.

Posted by norman June 8, 09 08:57 PM
add your comment *(If you put a URL in your comment, it must be relevant )
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About Political Intelligence

Reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors about the Obama administration, the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and other national political happenings.

News from the Washington Bureau

Senators voice optimism on public option

Buoyed by their weekend victory on a vote beginning the health care debate, several Senate Democrats expressed optimism yesterday they could find a way to keep a government-run insurance plan in the sweeping bill. (Globe Staff, 11/23/09)

Health overhaul narrowly advances

The Senate narrowly overcame the first of two critical hurdles to passing sweeping health care legislation last night, mustering the minimum of 60 votes required to begin debate on the bill and opening a volatile floor fight likely to last weeks. (Globe Staff 11/22/09)

Latinos, blacks take harder hit amid recession

Latinos and African-Americans in Massachusetts and across the country are facing high unemployment rates that could spiral to levels not seen in decades as the jobless economic recovery drags on, analysts and urban community advocates say. (Globe Staff, 11/21/09)

Some lawmakers push back Catholic church on health care bill

Representative Louise Slaughter has a consistent record advocating abortion rights. So the New York Democrat was stunned recently to receive, for the first time, a letter from a Catholic diocese in western New York, demanding that she explain her vote this month against a health care amendment prohibiting insurance companies from paying for abortions. (Globe Staff, 11/21/09)

Support wanes for curbs on credit-card interest rates

Efforts in Congress to cap credit-card interest rates are faltering because of opposition from Democrats and a lack of specific support from the White House, despite growing consumer outrage over a rush by banks to impose rates as high as 30 percent. (Globe Staff, 11/19/09)

Obama domestic agenda largely a one-party effort

Despite early pleas for bipartisanship, President Obama is forging ahead with his domestic agenda with a largely single-party strategy, unable to corral more than a handful of Republicans on a wide range of major legislation before Congress. (Globe Staff, 11/17/09)

Beirut attack victims’ families face new hurdle

On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. (Globe Staff, 11/14/09)

Powerful health care groups offer optimism on overhaul

Two leading health care interest groups, representing insurers and big business, struck a more conciliatory, even optimistic tone on the health care overhaul yesterday, emphasizing their support of the overall goal of increasing coverage and containing costs even as they warned that the wrong bill could cause great harm. (Globe Staff, 11/13/09)

FHA runs low on cash, fueling bailout concerns

The Federal Housing Administration, which propped up the collapsing housing market last year, acknowledged yesterday that it has drained its cash reserves to dangerously low levels, heightening concerns that it might need a taxpayer bailout. (Globe Staff, 11/13/09)

Earmarks’ cash flow lifts firms, lobbyists, lawmakers

16 defense-related firms in Massachusetts have secured nearly $30 million in federal funding in next year's defense appropriations bill pending in Congress. The tally offers a lesson in the practice known as congressional earmarking, in which lawmakers direct federal money to specific projects, usually in their districts. (Globe Staff, 11/12/09)

Afghanistan wary of US plan to send more advisers

Afghan officials have begun to push back from the Obama administration's plans to send hundreds of advisers to the country, complaining the Americans are often overpaid, underqualified, and unfamiliar with the culture of the country. (Globe Staff, 11/12/09)

Mass. keeps an eye on US bill’s funding ban

Massachusetts officials are closely monitoring an abortion funding ban in the sweeping health care legislation before Congress to make sure that it does not restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the state. (Globe Staff, 11/11/09)
archives