ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Security Politics

Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:03 AM by Huma Zaidi
Filed Under:

The New York Times says that the suicide bombing outside the US military base in Afghanistan “killed and wounded American soldiers and Afghan and Pakistani truck drivers and laborers waiting for access at the gate.  The incident was at the first security gate of the base, far from where Mr. Cheney was staying.”  More: “Mr. Cheney’s trip to the region had been shrouded in unusual secrecy…  This appeared to reflect growing concern about the strength of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region.” 

President Bush today takes part in the swearing-in of his new Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte.  Iraq and the war on terror will surface in several other venues in the Senate this week, Strick advises.  Today, Iraq war costs and troop funding will likely come up when Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates testify about Bush's emergency funding request.  And there will more talk about war costs on Thursday, when the Budget Committee hears from Pentagon officials about their annual funding request.  The war in Afghanistan also goes under the microscope on Thursday when the Armed Services panel hears from mid-level military types.

A group of Senate Democrats and the head of the party's governors' association hold a press conference to call for changes in Bush's war policy to protect the National Guard.

And Sen. Joe Biden holds a town hall on Iraq at Dartmouth tonight, which his campaign bills as the first of many he'll be holding throughout the country.  He previews his visit with a Boston Globe op-ed calling for a new Iraq war resolution. 

Roll Call notes that today's caucus meeting will mark the first time that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "will be able to meet with his rank-and-file membership to discuss the" proposed 2002 war resolution repeal "following the surprise announcement of the reauthorization strategy more than a week ago." 

A new Washington Post/ABC poll shows that "a majority of Americans" -- 53% -- "now support setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from the war-torn nation," while 58% "support putting new conditions on the military that could limit the number of personnel available for duty there…  The poll also registered a new low on the question of whether the Iraq war was worth fighting.  Thirty-four percent responded that it was, while 64 percent said it was not -- 51 percent strongly."  Bush's job approval rating is 36%. 

The Wall Street Journal puts Democratic lawmakers' dilemma this way: "Can Congress continue to fault U.S. policy from a distance, or must lawmakers take hold of it and risk owning the outcome?...  In the wake of their election losses in November, Republicans have their own divisions over the president's policy.  But Democrats face greater pressure, and the debate exposes internal politics and warring personalities, especially in the House." 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

"Shoot Out The Lights"-Richard Thompson
Desmond, I agree - good post.
Apppropriate plans? After over 5 1/2 years there? I am so happy to hear that.As for percentages, nothing from nothing is still nothing.Not smoking them out?Going to root them out? Let them come out and fight? Mamma Mia. SYSTEM FAILURE.
Sierra-thanks. The regurgitating of reagan administration criminals into the hiddeously corrupt and achingly treasonous GWB "administration" makes me to angry to be rational. These people like Negroponte should have only got out of prison in the last few years. George Bush can't even supply a first-rate team of criminals on his own - Nixon did.
Desmond. I thought I was you, or are you Ken, Olivia? Are we blog-dominating Medusa-snake-headed menaces to the simple minded? I guess we all have something that each of us wants to say, on-topic and off-but-related-like six-degrees-of-kevin bacon-related-to-the-topic, so we say it. Vent it, get it off our chests, unload. This blog has personally saved me a fortune in Psychiatry bills and twice kept me from throwing away my fifth edition of Rilke's 'sonnets to Orpheus' and other favorites of Bazooka Joe... Oh, and John Deere?...buy an Oliver and fix it up.
Hey Darren Pope, I think that people that don't have a sense of humor aren't very smart. I do agree though, that smarter voters would equal smarter government. Voters apparently haven't been very smart for the last two presidential elections. And speaking of intelligence, I must not be very smart because I am trying to figure out John Deere's post, but I can't get past the "live in the same small post office box" part. Just does'nt make sense to me. Howdy Desmond.
Nuh-uh John. I'maDemocrat.Democratsdon'tlikegunsREEMEMBEEER?! My dad can beat up your dad. - I'm just kidding John Deere. Excuse the pun.
Olivia, Ken and Steve Turner< I'm glad we had that meet-up last night. Now we have our posts ready. No more disorganized rantings.Life is good.
Oh Darren, Its so nice of you to stick up for our VP. Like HE really needs it! Why don't you have the same passion about protecting our soldiers who really need it- like bringing them home and out of harms way.
Desmond, I find it funny that everyone likes to say "listen to the military folks"...and now you're acting as though you've got a better plan and a better way to deal with Afghanistan than those who are running ISAF and the US military in that country. Believe it or not, plans CHANGE. Yes, we've been there for 5 1/2 years. There are two ways to try and get rid of the Taliban. 1) Crush all the Islamic movements within the country and flatten villages that support the Taliban 2) Try and improve Afghani lives and their country so that they will eventually migrate away from extremism, and guard against remaining Taliban/al Qaeda attempts to regain power. I will tell you that option 2 takes a while. However, option 1 might give you faster results, the results are much like a fad diet...you will fail in the long run. The Soviets tried Option 1, and all it did was push more people TOWARDS the Islamic groups. Here's a fair question, Desmond...what would YOU do, since you enjoy scoffing at the plan from the sideline, as if you know a better way?
Chris, well, from all I have read and heard from the administration, your option 2 plan was suppose to be the plan we are under now, having already accomplished number one.It has been 5 1/2 years since Plan 1 was accomplished. I believe we lost sight of Option 2 when we took special ops and troops out of Afhganistan and placed them in Iraq.The Northern Alliance has said that they feel the Kharzi government is corrupt. We have not made progress in helping the farmers find a cash crop other than poppies. Leaving the war lords in control of the provinces has done nothing to further democracy. You may say I scoff. I am angry that this situation is unraveling at this point in time. I am angry that the Taliban are once again making headway. And I am especially angry that we are still looking for bin Laden. We took our eyes off all of that when we shifted our resources to Iraq. Now, the President wants more troops back in Afhganistan. He never should have taken them out in the first place. Plans changed the day we shifted our forces to Iraq.Scoffing, no. Angry yes.
So are you saying there are no SOF troops in Afghanistan? If that's the case, I'd have to disagree with you. SOF forces are still very much active within Afghanistan. And there are MORE troops (about 27,000) than there have been anytime since the initial invasion of Afghanistan (which was done with about 20,000). bin Laden is likely NOT in Afghanistan. As for corruption...welcome to Afghanistan. Find me a leader there who isn't corrupt in some form or fashion, and I'll give you a candy bar. The reality is we had to find someone who was LESS corrupt, and believe it or not, Kharzi isn't anywhere near as bad as many of the warlords (the ones complaining) are. There will always continue to be finger pointing and accusations of corruption within the Afghani population, because that is how they've operated for many years now, and it will take a long while to change. By the way, aside from supporting OIF, we fly many missions supporting OEF as well. Bagram, Kabul and Kandahar are familiar places to C-130 aircrew. You have READ your information...from what source, I don't know. But in my honest opinion, even Time and CNN don't always accurately paint the overall picture. So you can continue to read and tell me I'm full of it, even though I SEE this stuff for my own eyes. Sorry about the sore attitude...I'm just tired of time after time after time having people tell me that their well-read Time magazine perspective makes them know-it-alls, and my personal experiences in the region are not typical. I guess I always have an atypical experience when I go up north...maybe the Taliban/al Qaeda fighters know I'm coming, and then retreat to make things look pretty stable...maybe the SOF forces know I'm on my way to and pack up their Iraq operation to head to Afghanistan to provide me a show. Maybe all the intel officers that brief my crew make up "rosy" scenarios, just for me. Maybe Time magazine, or whatever media source, does have it right and I'm just being tricked? I don't know.
Chris, I did not say there were no special ops in Afhganistan. That was your interpretation.If you can find Mullah Omar and bin Laden, you will have accomplished what you have not been able to accomplish for 5 1/2 years. Until then, I will continue to be angry that the mission was not accomplished. And in my opinion, that is so because we chose to invade another country. Watch out for those poppy fields. they will be the doom of us yet.
So if we find Omar and bin Laden, then what? Will you jump up in joy and say "Mission Accomplished"? I believe that capturing either or both of them would be great, but you can't let that define success or failure of the mission overall. Just like the death of al Zarqarwi in Iraq, leaders can be replaced by others. bin Laden's death or capture may perhaps be a morale booster, but it won't appreciably change the course of the conflict. That being said, finding a handful of individuals in a region that has few roads, lots of hiding places, and porous borders between various other countries we aren't allowed into, is a task that I'm sure even you would have problems with. The poppy fields are an issue that's best described as darned if you do, darned if you don't. Get rid of them, and suddenly you have lots of people with nothing else better to do but join the Taliban. Let it get swept under the rug, and now you're undercutting the war on drugs. There's no easy answer to that issue.
"I believe we lost sight of Option 2 when we took special ops and troops out of Afhganistan and placed them in Iraq". I'm guessing that doesn't mean we don't have SOF in Afghanistan? We never reduced troop levels in Afghanistan...in fact, the numbers went up (albeit many of the increases were ISAF forces). Afghanistan is not a back-burner issue. If you ever got the chance to walk into the CAOC (Combined Air Operations Center) you'd notice that Afghanistan is very much an important endeavor as Iraq. But make no mistake...both conflicts, while similar, also are very different. You can't take huge armored divisions and put them in Afghanistan and hope they are effective in finding bin Laden. Sorry, I just don't see how you think having an M2 Bradley or M1 tank would be useful in a country full of 18,000-20,000 foot tall mountain ranges. Infantry is pretty limited too...large unit maneuvers would FAIL in Afghanistan. Ask the Soviets about that...they know very well. The reason why Afghanistan SEEMS small is because the vast majority of the forces there are SOF forces or airborne/mountain light infantry units supported by helicopters. Tanks, armored fighting vehicles, and large divisions like the 3rd Infantry just aren't the units to do the job. Despite the fact that the 3rd ID says "Infantry", it's a pretty heavily armored infantry division. I did wargaming a while back with the Army in 1996...scenario was Korea. Korea has lots of mountainous terrain with many valleys. The only way the larger units could maneuver was in the valleys, and the "enemy" massacred the larger units...they had no where to go but forward or backwards.
Chris. I am not in the military. You are not my superior. I really do know something about geography. Let us all know when you find bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
Chris, I hope you have read the reports from testimony today in the Senate Armed Services committee. Eric Alderman, in particular.And oh,yes Chris two of the countries the United States faults for opium production would be Afhganistan and Pakistan.
Chris, I am not in the military. You are not my superior. I actually do know something about geography. Let us know when you find bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
I never said I WAS your superior. I don't believe my posts were intended to tell you what to do. I am disagreeing with your posts that claim, in your wisdom, that SOF units were pulled out of Afghanistan, and that little or nothing is being done in Afghanistan. Additionally, you seem to try and simplify the problem of opium production in Afghanistan. I'm not saying it's a good situation. I am saying it's easy to snipe at the situation when in reality, you probably don't have a REAL solution to it. It's frustrating to see so many people, like yourself, that seem to feel finding two men among millions of people spread across one of the highest mountain ranges in the world, in one of the most isolated areas of the world, would be "easy". It took over a decade to find the Unabomber, and he was inside our own country.
Chris, our nation was attacked on September 11,2001. I was not afraid. I was angry that our government and intelligence officials did not anticipate that fact. I will also remind you of the fact that our President stood on a pile of rubble and said he would find bin Laden and he would do more than lobing a few missles at him.(referring to President Clinton.).So, Chris, I take that statement very seriously.Whether you intended to or not, I find your statements very condesending.Facts are facts.Perhaps our President oversimplified the problem.Once again, let me know when you find Mullah Omar and bin Laden.5 and 1/2 years and counting...Let me know when you find bin Laden and the blind cleric Mullah Omar.
In the mean time,Chris, you are a pilot,. No danger to succuming to the fumes from the poppy fields. That happened to Dorothy, and the Scarecrow and the Tin Man and the Cowarldy Lion.Let me know when you find bin Laden and Mullah Omar.5 and 1/half years and counting....I am waiting and and more than angry.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=70107

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google