Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) just weighed in on this morning’s White House rollout of a new plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan — and he’s taking the opposite view of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who warned the administration against an overly “Afghan-centric” approach.
In a long statement, Levin praised President Obama for starting off “on the right track” before openly questioning Pakistan’s commitment to policing its lawless northwestern border with Afghanistan. “I disagree with some administration statements that we can’t make progress in Afghanistan without success on the Pakistan side of the border,” Levin said. His response is available in full after the jump.
The Obama Administration’s plan for Afghanistan is on the right track. Afghanistan is the place where the plans for the attacks of 9/11 on our homeland were laid and where the training was carried out. We must ensure that Afghanistan will never again be a haven for al Qaeda.
I strongly support the key decision to accelerate the expansion of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP). It is important to put the Afghans in the lead in the fight as much as possible so as to avoid the perception that we are occupiers and to assure the success of the mission of helping Afghanistan to achieve stability. I support the decision to deploy an additional brigade of 4,000 soldiers, whose almost exclusive role will be to train the ANA. I have been calling for additional trainers for some time. I also support the surge of up to 500 additional civilians, a large majority of whom will be posted in the countryside to help man the provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) to promote economic development and governance. We need to support Afghanistan’s development through programs that empower the Afghan people to set their own priorities and take ownership of local development projects. One of the highly successful efforts to do that is the World Bank administered National Solidarity Program.
I support the decision to establish benchmarks which can be used to assess the extent to which our efforts are making progress, thus allowing corrections to the plan to be made as required. NATO needs to establish its own benchmarks. With the exception of the nations whose forces are fighting with us in the south and east, NATO’s contribution has been unsatisfactory in terms of military forces, trainers for the ANA and ANP, and funds for equipment and economic development.
While I welcome the new focus on Pakistan, both economically and militarily, I am skeptical that the Pakistanis will secure their border, particularly in the Baluchistan area of Pakistan, whose open border allows the free flow of Taliban fighters into southern Afghanistan. I disagree with some Administration statements that we can’t make progress in Afghanistan without success on the Pakistan side of the border. That’s why, although Afghanistan’s future is surely impacted by events in Pakistan, it should not be tied too tightly to Pakistan’s governmental decisions or be dependent upon them.
The Senate Armed Services Committee will be holding a hearing on Wednesday, April 1, to receive testimony from the Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, who has been a participant in the policy group that considered the recommendations of the several reviews that were conducted, General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, who was a major contributor to the plan, and Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, whose forces are deeply involved in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
