Feingold: Afghanistan Surge = More Extremists to Pakistan
EmailDemocratic Senator Russ Feingold told me the President’s Afghanistan surge will make matters worse in Pakistan. When I asked Feingold if the Taliban in Pakistan would be strengthened if they are not defeated in Afghanistan, here’s what he said:
FEINGOLD: Well, it’s just the opposite. You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan? They couldn’t deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it’s just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest.
Watch the complete exchange here:
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
George:
Please do not leave “This Week.” It is the best Sunday political talk show on the air. GMA is beneath your intelligence. Please stay.
Posted by: Aaron | December 6, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
I wish ‘Meet the Press’ would air an hour earlier so I could watch both. I hate recording anything.
Posted by: rich | December 6, 2009, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm
Feingold = wrong about the Iraq surge
Posted by: jonny | December 6, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
As someone says above – they said the same arguments against the Iraq surge and I think the success of that surprised most armchair generals.
Posted by: UK Man | December 6, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
For the last two weeks I have had trouble viewing THIS WEEK except in pieces and they are interrupted by ads.
This week it was so frustrating that I had to give up.
My question to you: I have been a loyal viewer for years for this is too much – so – do you want an audience or not?
Posted by: barbara sampley | December 6, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
It is a height of sheer absurdity for US government to claim that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are in danger of falling in to the hands of Islamic extremists if Taliban insurgency wins in Afghanistan when Pakistan’s current democratic as well as previous military governments are sheltering and protecting the leaders of that very Taliban Afghan insurgency in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan.
General McChrystal clearly laid out in his assessment to President Obama that:
1. Most insurgent fighters in Afghanistan are directed by a small number of Afghan senior leaders based in Pakistan that work through an alternative political infrastructure in Afghanistan.
2. The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year.
3. Afghanistan’s insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.
Pakistan is sheltering and protecting these Afghan insurgent groups to reestablish its writ in Afghanistan as and when US leaves.
As Times of London reported on 9/28/09, Pakistani government started to relocate Afghan Taliban’s QST leaders to Karachi to protect them from impending US drone attacks on Quetta after the submittal of General McChrystal’s assessment.
With an ally like Pakistan, US has NO chance of winning in Afghanistan no matter how much military efforts or aid US pours there.
Posted by: simple simon | December 6, 2009, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
Mr Feingold….the time line is the best thing the president could do. They now know that our support is not open ended. Of course, they will reapprise the situation after that time, however, they know that they will not get our support and money if they do not get off their butts and start helping themselves. It took courage for our president to say this and I applaud him. The republicans after ignoring Afghanistan for 7 yrs. now seem to have a lot to say. Why didn’t they have a solution to the problem when they were in charge. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 yrs. The president is living up to his promise and trying to do something about that area. Now it is up to them to get self sufficient.
Posted by: talmag | December 7, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am
The more that the Taliban can be forced into a smaller and more concentrated area, the easier they can be dealt with.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | December 7, 2009, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
Is Obama’s administration going to demonstrate ‘Rambo’ attitudes toward the Pakistanis?
Or, is this a renewed game of ‘good cop and bad cop? Hillary wants to talk to lower level Taliban chieftains, or at least to their wives(???) in order to convince them that prolonging the war would be useless due to vast ammounts of innocent victims.
Super hefty ‘smoking gun’ generals at the Pentagon want to fight the Taliban within Pakistan. Does it really make sense to threaten the Pakistanis as well? Nope, but more U.S. casualties-.
Posted by: Al Feyrstien | December 8, 2009, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm