Yesterday, the Senate approved President Obama’s $91.3 billion war supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan by a vote of 86-3. One Democrat, one Republican and one Independent voted against the measure. Click here to see how your senator voted.
The supplemental reinforces the military approach to the war in Afghanistan by allocating $73 billion dollars to the Pentagon. Of the $73 billion, $21.9 billion would go toward the procurement of new military vehicles, while a mere $4.6 billion will be used to equip and train Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Under Obama’s plan, the anticipated number of troops in Afghanistan will rise to 68,000 by the beginning of 2010, making the total more than double what it was at the end of 2008. Given that military strategies of fighting terrorism have a long well-documented history of failure, the supplemental is likely to be counterproductive to US security objectives. Disappointingly, the bill also lacks an exit strategy to help ensure the US’ best intentions in Afghanistan are upheld.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voiced concern , although she ultimately voted for the bill:
“I want to give this administration … the resources it needs to successfully end these wars,” Boxer said. “I don’t support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gained approval of an amendment requiring the Obama administration to establish objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to provide quarterly reports illustrating whether those objectives are being met.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved a $96.7 dollar version of the bill, 368-60. Their version allocates roughly $81.3 billion to the military, while providing just $10.1 billion to civilian aid projects. A conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions is expected to meet sometime in early June, after the congressional recess.
Yesterday, the Senate approved President Obama’s $91.3 billion war supplemental 86-3. One Democrat, one Republican and one Independent voted against the measure. Click here to see how your senator voted.
The supplemental reinforces the military approach to the war in Afghanistan by allocating $73 billion dollars to the Pentagon. Of the $73 billion, $21.9 billion will go toward the procurement of new military vehicles, while a mere $4.6 billion will be used to equip and train Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Under Obama’s plan, the anticipated number of troops in Afghanistan will rise to 68,000 by the beginning of 2010, making the total more than double what it was at the end of 2008. Given that military strategies of fighting terrorism have a long well-documented history of failure, the supplemental is likely to be counterproductive to US security objectives. Disappointingly, the bill also lacks an exit strategy to help ensure the US’ best intentions in Afghanistan are upheld.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voiced concern , although she ultimately voted for the bill:
“I want to give this administration … the resources it needs to successfully end these wars,” Boxer said. “I don’t support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gained approval of an amendment requiring the Obama administration to establish objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to provide quarterly reports illustrating whether those objectives are being met.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved a $96.7 dollar version of the bill, 368-60. Their version allocates roughly $81.3 billion to the military, while providing just $10.1 billion to civilian aid projects. A conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions is expected to meet sometime in early June, after the congressionalYesterday, the Senate approved President Obama’s $91.3 billion war supplemental 86-3. One Democrat, one Republican and one Independent voted against the measure. Click here to see how your senator voted.
The supplemental reinforces the military approach to the war in Afghanistan by allocating $73 billion dollars to the Pentagon. Of the $73 billion, $21.9 billion will go toward the procurement of new military vehicles, while a mere $4.6 billion will be used to equip and train Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Under Obama’s plan, the anticipated number of troops in Afghanistan will rise to 68,000 by the beginning of 2010, making the total more than double what it was at the end of 2008. Given that military strategies of fighting terrorism have a long well-documented history of failure, the supplemental is likely to be counterproductive to US security objectives. Disappointingly, the bill also lacks an exit strategy to help ensure the US’ best intentions in Afghanistan are upheld.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voiced concern , although she ultimately voted for the bill:
“I want to give this administration … the resources it needs to successfully end these wars,” Boxer said. “I don’t support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gained approval of an amendment requiring the Obama administration to establish objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to provide quarterly reports illustrating whether those objectives are being met.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved a $96.7 dollar version of the bill, 368-60. Their version allocates roughly $81.3 billion to the military, while providing just $10.1 billion to civilian aid projects. A conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions is expected to meet sometime in early June, after the congressional recess. Yesterday, the Senate approved President Obama’s $91.3 billion war supplemental 86-3. One Democrat, one Republican and one Independent voted against the measure. Click here to see how your senator voted.
The supplemental reinforces the military approach to the war in Afghanistan by allocating $73 billion dollars to the Pentagon. Of the $73 billion, $21.9 billion will go toward the procurement of new military vehicles, while a mere $4.6 billion will be used to equip and train Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Under Obama’s plan, the anticipated number of troops in Afghanistan will rise to 68,000 by the beginning of 2010, making the total more than double what it was at the end of 2008. Given that military strategies of fighting terrorism have a long well-documented history of failure, the supplemental is likely to be counterproductive to US security objectives. Disappointingly, the bill also lacks an exit strategy to help ensure the US’ best intentions in Afghanistan are upheld.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voiced concern , although she ultimately voted for the bill:
“I want to give this administration … the resources it needs to successfully end these wars,” Boxer said. “I don’t support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gained approval of an amendment requiring the Obama administration to establish objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to provide quarterly reports illustrating whether those objectives are being met.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved a $96.7 dollar version of the bill, 368-60. Their version allocates roughly $81.3 billion to the military, while providing just $10.1 billion to civilian aid projects. A conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions is expected to meet sometime in early June, after the congressional recessYesterday, the Senate approved President Obama’s $91.3 billion war supplemental 86-3. One Democrat, one Republican and one Independent voted against the measure. Click here to see how your senator voted.
The supplemental reinforces the military approach to the war in Afghanistan by allocating $73 billion dollars to the Pentagon. Of the $73 billion, $21.9 billion will go toward the procurement of new military vehicles, while a mere $4.6 billion will be used to equip and train Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Under Obama’s plan, the anticipated number of troops in Afghanistan will rise to 68,000 by the beginning of 2010, making the total more than double what it was at the end of 2008. Given that military strategies of fighting terrorism have a long well-documented history of failure, the supplemental is likely to be counterproductive to US security objectives. Disappointingly, the bill also lacks an exit strategy to help ensure the US’ best intentions in Afghanistan are upheld.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voiced concern , although she ultimately voted for the bill:
“I want to give this administration … the resources it needs to successfully end these wars,” Boxer said. “I don’t support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan. And if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy there.”
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gained approval of an amendment requiring the Obama administration to establish objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to provide quarterly reports illustrating whether those objectives are being met.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives approved a $96.7 dollar version of the bill, 368-60. Their version allocates roughly $81.3 billion to the military, while providing just $10.1 billion to civilian aid projects. A conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions is expected to meet sometime in early June, after the congressional recess
recess.
Once again we have a congress and President who failed the American people
miserably when it comes to funding more and more war! This leaves one with
a sense of futility and hopelessness. This is an atrocity of great magnitude!
Just think if one moment we had $91 billion dollars to make war on world
poverty and to fight global warming how much more safe and sound our world
and economy would be. We are suffering from a broken economy but the
people in Washington and lobbyists are out of touch with the reality of things.
This is going to bring all of us down mightily ! The funding of the Afghanistan war
will turn out to be another Vietnam! Occupying other countries for a war effort
adversely affected Russia when they were occupying Afghanistan. What makes
us think that we will win a war if other countries using military means failed.
What is really alarming is that we have a congress that is worthless when it
comes to changing course and maintaining ignorance as to what they have
voted for. This has got to change! Indeed if it doesn’t will reap the dire
consequences of each vote going for war and more war and more war!