Blue America Welcomes Eric Massa For A Talk On Afghanistan
By Howie Klein Friday Sep 25, 2009 2:00pmLast night two of the blogosphere's brightest lights posted on the difficulties Obama is facing when it comes to turning around U.S. Afghanistan policy. Digby, who recounted a 1964 conversation between McGeorge Bundy and President Lyndon Johnson about the futility of American policies in Vietnam, seemed aghast that "Democratic strategist" Donna Brazile was on CNN yesterday seemingly reading some leftover talking points from Karen Hughes about the need to stay in Afghanistan and "get the job done." Then last night Daily Kos' most prescient Afghanistan blogger, Meteor Blades, highlighted the controversy over Andrea Mitchell's report on the 500,000 troops needed to do the job in Afghanistan.
But as Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), our No Means No guest today, asked me this morning, "What is the job?"
Blue America's friendship with Eric Massa goes back to the very beginning of our PAC and he was one of the first candidates we ever supported. Ultimately it was his character that moved us to endorse him, although his championing of issues impacting the real lives of working families (like "fair trade" over so-called "free trade"), his dogged support of single-payer health care, and his spot-on analysis of the war in Iraq based on experience as a Naval officer are what first drew us to him. He came close in 2006 and he triumphed in 2008-- in one of the only districts in New York that Obama didn't win! Obama tool 48% in NY-29 while Massa scooped up 51% against a multimillionaire incumbent and Bush tool.
In June, Eric was one of only 32 Democrats to vote against the supplemental war budget -- of the 90 who had pledged to vote no. It was an incredibly courageous political act, particularly in a district with a daunting R+5.48 PVI (one of the most Republican districts in the country represented by a progressive Democrat). This morning Eric told me in no uncertain terms that he would "continue to vote against any supplemental."
We're not going to fund any wars in a way that no one knows about. The Republicans gave the wealthiest Americans the largest tax cut in history and then launched two wars without any idea of how to pay for them. It was the most fiscally irresponsible action they could take-- and they took it.
Eric is fired up and full of fight, as always. He loves his job and told me he's absolutely committed to it. "I'm in the right place in my life doing the right job for the right congressional district. And I'm just getting started." Right now, you hear the lifelong military man in him when he says he's very supportive of what he calls "the president's strategic pause to formulate whatever strategy his administration will implement (in Afghanistan)."
For instance, is this about fighting the Taliban or fighting al-Qaeda -- two distinctly different groups -- or is it about creating a democracy, or is it about protecting the Afghan people? These are very different missions that require very different resources. And until we know what we're doing, we cannot begin to get it done. The first thing a military officer asks is 'What is the mission?' And as of right now, that is a very legitimate question."
As progressives and men and women of common sense, we should demand a strategy that turns the destiny of Afghanistan over to the Afghans so we can get out of there as soon as possible. If the condition of our departure is creating a Jeffersonian democracy, then we are on a fool's errand.
Eric is joining us now (in the comments section) as part of our ongoing series on Afghanistan policy at Crooks and Liars. As MoveOn mentioned in the mailing this morning, "U.S. policy in Afghanistan has reached a pivotal moment. President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. And there's a big debate happening right now about what to do. Pro-war advocates both inside and outside the administration -- including John McCain and Joe Lieberman -- are calling for a big escalation. The general in charge of Afghanistan is expected to request tens of thousands more troops, and that may just be the beginning. They're cranking up the pressure for an immediate surge."
Eric Massa is in a unique position to help us figure out a progressive strategy for dealing with this dilemma. He's adamant that if the President asks for more funds for the war, he do it through a normal budgetary process that includes a "clearly articulated strategy with an end game. The Republicans say they're all about fiscal responsibility? Then they should agree we should apply those concepts to wars."
Please take a look at Blue America's No Means No! page and consider donating to Eric and any or all of the 32 other Democrats who have already done the right thing by voting no on the supplemental budget 3 months ago and who we will be counting on to help end the occupation of Afghanistan in the coming months.
Login or Register to post comments.
Eric, thanks for taking the time out to talk with us about American policy in Afghanistan. When do you think the House is going to be taking up the question of war funding again? And, I'm assuming-- from both what Obey said and what the president has said-- that it will be through a normal budgetary process this time, not a supplemental.
First it is a pleasure to be with you tonight and to return to live blogging. This is a forum that I greatly enjoyed as a candidate and look forward to engaging in again. I am a horrible typist so please fogive the errors as I try to answer quickly.
From everything that I am hearing, the era of the supplemental is now over and this will fundamentally change the nature of how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded. We are in for a rocky ride as we try to both bring transparency and fiscal responsiblity to this process.
OK, the key point is, are you a Yankee and NY football Giants fan?
Huge Yankee fan. My chief of staff is the kind of guy who paints himself in blue and white for the games. I don't. Football ... not so much except for the Naval Academy which I follow genetically since that's home turf for me. Standby the the Army Navy game this year ... set to be our seventh straight win.
Yankee fan. I wrote a Yankee blog for a while so I'm looking forward to wiping out the jinx of the "bugs" in Cleveland. That was a nightmare..LOL
Welcome.
I know you probably keep in better contact with your constituents than any other member of Congress. I hope they know how lucky they are. But I'm curious to know how they took your vote on the supplemental and what they think about the war in general?
At first there were the usual "voting against the troops" stuff but when the Republicans all switched votes as well (more than 160 switched over to vote against the Bill when it returned to the House) that sort of lost steam. The vast majority of ALL Americans want our troops home. Period.
In line with John's question, you seem to have drawn a real clown as an opponent, that mayor of Corning. He never seems able to say enough stupid things. Has he addressed the war? Are Republicans working themselves up into a lather over it in one direction or another or are they just waiting to see what Obama does so they can oppose whatever it is? I've run across a couple of Republicans who want to end the occupation-- Ron Paul, Tim Johnson and Walter Jones. Are there others?
I take my opponent very seriously because he will work to self fund as most millionaires can and do. That having been said he has only recently accused me of walking away from the troops with the supplemental vote and no doubt he will continue to do so. The issue here is how to bring our military and support personnel home. I agree with the President that we should execute a strategic pause (currently ongoing) while the national military command sets a strategy in place. I thought that the Administration had articulated such a stragety but recent comments now bring me to believe that they are still formulating and until we know what the mission is we cannot decide what is needed to accomplish that mission. I believe that everything we do should be aimed at turning the country over to those who live there and returning our personnel to CONUS (mil talk for Continental United States).
Are the expectations that we can build a security force of nearly half a million Afghanistanis realistic?
Can this large of a fighting force be supported by the Afghans or will we finance their military indefinitely?
No and no again. Please understand that the vast majority of the population in Aghanistan does not share the national ethos of being Afghaan first but rather belonging to a tribal affiliation that far outweighs national identity. Until we understand that and move accordingly this concept of 500,000 armed Afghans is a pipedream and a fools errand.
I spent a lot of time in Afghanistan in 1969 and 1972. There was NO national consciousness outside of Kabul whatsoever, even in the 2nd and 3rd biggest cities, Kandahar and Herat, people referred to the king as "the King of Kabul." We recognize it as a country but they barely do!
Thank you. That was a very direct and unexpected answer. I appreciate it.
Have you heard anything about reports that 70% of the battalion level officers in the AFghan army as Tajiks and that the majority Pashtuns just feel that it isn't their army and don't wnat to serve in it?
I have not been briefed on a specific ethnic breakdown but we faced this issue in Iraq and it was only when we embraced the fact that various tribal and religious groups would serve within themselves and not with each other did we begin to see some progress. We must align ourselves with the reality of the tribal nature of government in Afghanistan and stop trying to create a Jeffersonian democracy in Kabul.
The Senate Appropriations Committee seems to have cut nearly a billion dollars from the administration's request for Afghan wear funding for the coming fiscal year. That took me by surprise. Did you know anything about that? Is it a step in the right direction-- or some kind of trick?
As the Authorization bill is currently in conference and in that I have not gone back line by line to look at the funding levels it is difficult to comment on that one but this weekend I will pull the numbers and ask questions on Tuesday when we are back in session.
I have friends, civilians, French and English and American, who've worked with UNESCO in Afghanistan, who have seen and been involved first hand with peaceful efforts to improve the ordinary lives of Afghans, which in turn reap huge benefits as local leaders work with, rather than against, outsiders. What, if any, specific plans other than those run by the military does the US have, either in place or planned, on those lines?
To my point of view you have hit the nail on the head and I have not heard of any major ongoing efforts of the same style outside of those put forth by the US military. I have stated that deploying the US military is not enough. We must deploy the entire force of the US government including the Department of Agriculture and all the rest. But, we are ill prepped for such an effort and nine months into the new Administration we have not yet seen this effort.
The people I've known in UNESCO are amazing, courageous and even creative optimists with extensive experience in this part of the world. If the current administration has not looked into other alternative solutions in Afghanistan other than military, would you, personally, think about meeting with organizations such as UNESCO, or private individuals such as the guy promoting growing pomegranates in Afghanistan on a local level, to come up with proposed alternatives to the White House or Congress?
This is now a Democratic war, and I haven't heard anything approaching an answer to either question. What we should have done eight years ago is not an answer for today.
Agreed.
And as a follow up to fiver's question-- What can grassroots and netroots Democrats do to help end the occupation? How can we be effective in helping to end this thing?
As in all grassroots activities visibility is key. The President signalled his Administration's intention to engage in Afghanistan by stating repeatedly during the campaign that this was a "war of necessity" and not a "war of choice". We should not therefore be surprised that he is considering additional troops for the effort. The sad reality is that the health care debate has pushed key issues off the front page and only through discussion and commitment to bringing our troops home can we make a difference. We must not let this be framed as a liberal or progressive cause. It is a National security issue that cuts across Party lines and Party registration.
Is the Administration's increasingly hawkish position on Afghanistan (and now Iran) an incentive to lessen resistance to the Administration's health care agenda?
Asia Times has some excellent reporting. Most recently an interview with an ex-Interior Minister. He states that the U.S. is blocking the formation of a much needed National Police force to guard their 6 borders and that the police are not receiving adequate equipment to do the job they want and need to do. One item mentioned that only 2 helicopters were provided for one state that has no roads.
Another contention was that the support for tribal leaders are misguided. I was wondering where you get most of your information.
My information is largely from open source conversations and classified briefings provided to Members of Congress. Of course, I am not allowed to discuss classified information but I do believe that the thousands of years of tribal history in Afghanistan speak for themselves. There is no doubt that there may never be enough resources to provide the kind of equipment that we would need in a western military but remember that we very effectively waged an unconventional war 8 years ago with very few forces on the ground and a large conventional force, I believe, may be the wrong way to go. BUT, I repeat, until the mission is defined there is no way to fully discuss what is needed to complete that mission.
it seems impossible. Do they think they can pay them off like they did the Sunnis?
You bring up a great point. The surge in Iraq was much more a surge of funding for Tribal leaders than it was anything else. We fundamentally hired those who had been shooting at us. I do not know if such a strategy will work in this case. There are far more moving pieces.
I don't want to embarrass Congressman Massa but I want to point out again, that he was one of only 32 Democrats with the cajones to vote against the supplemental war budget in June, an act of great political courage. Along with Alan Grayson and Carol Shea-Porter, he was one of only three to do that in Republican districts-- and his is REALLY a Republican district. I hope everyone has had a chance to visit the Blue America No Means No! page and kick down even just $5 or $10. These are the members of Congress we're going to be counting on to halt a growing drumbeat from people like McCain and Lieberman to escalate the war.
I am not embarassed to do what I said I would do. I campaigned on the position that I would not vote to fund the supplementals and I didn't.
Eric, as a Monroe County resident (and one who was at the health care town hall in Victor), I'm glad to see you here. I hope it's not too far off topic to tell you that I hope you keep up the pressure for public financing of health care. Even Libertarians like me know that a health care mandate to buy private insurance is nothing more than giving precedence to fictional people (corporations) over real people.
As you know I have been in the center of the health care storm. I have a problem with an individual mandate that takes money from American citizens and transfers it to for profit insurance companies. By the way my concern is not liberal nor conservative it's constitutional.
Once again, thank you, Rep. Massa. It means a lot.
How do you counter the right's argument that pulling out of Afghanistan will destabilize Pakistan and increase terrorism?
I personally believe our presence is destabilizing, but even if we wanted to take on Pakistan, where would we get the money, resources and access?
I want to know that answer too, especially considering the recent history of the Soviet withdrawl and ensuing rule of the Taliban.
Furthermore, is Karzai a legitimate leader? Do we have any answers about fraud during the recent elections? Should we support him regardless in the interest of stability?
always end with the occupier leaving . . .
We have to get out sooner or later.
We are the reason the Taliban have surged in popularity
The Cheney Admin couldn't distinguish between Al Quieda and the Talaban, that's the main reason we're fighting 60K instead of 2K.
It is my opinion that we make a mistake if we gauge success or failure on how "clean" elections are or are not. If we pin our hopes on the "legitimacy" of Karzai. I personally feel that by our standards his entire government is more corrupt than anything we can imagine but I do not jugde this government by our standards because I do not hold as a determining goal the creation of a Jeffersonian democracy.
WE counter the argument with the reality that only the people of the region can determine their future and now EIGHT YEARS into this if we have not found the allies to take over perhaps we never will. You, however have hit the nail on the head with respect to the importance of Pakistan as it impacts the entire discussion.
I'm very glad to hear that.
btw here's a link to that interview
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI23D...
Nothing to add but THANKS!
Smedley Butler will not testify in Congress but I hope that someone of similar moral authority WILL:
to say END THE WARS. Because war is a racket and it always has been.
I have to check off the net here in a few but allow me to leave with these thoughts. This Administration inherited this situation and that, in my opinion, gives them a great deal more room to earn my support than the previous group who created this situation. I will do everything to offer constructive support without tearing down the very group of people on who I pin my hopes. We are too quick to attack our own even when the problems that the Administration are fighting are situations that were handed to them. Looking forward to returning and the very best to all. Eric Massa, Member of Congress, NY 29
Thanks for coming by Eric. We'll look forward to talking with you again in the future. Good luck!
Alan Grayson said something yesterday that a lot of us have been talking about, something along the lines of President Obama being too smart a man to allow his presidency to be wrecked on the shoals of someone else's ill-conceived war. Do you think President Obama's already made up his mind or do we have a real shot to change his mind (or his mind that he expressed during the camapign)? Are you, personally, working on anything in that direction?
I talk with Alan almost very day and support his efforts to help in this situation.
"Loser" and that Obama lost the war to attack him. It's an easy talking point that the media will run on. How do we fight that? being a sports fan like we are, Americans can be influenced with this type of perception.
You seem very able in rapidly responding to a host of comments from more than a few different directions.
Well done.
Hi, Eric. Long time no see. We need to fix that one of these days, after my broken hip recovers. Just dropped by to say "Hi" and keep up the great work and fighting the good fight. My old Colorado Senate candidate buddy Mike Miles always said, "Fight the fights needed fighting, not just those you can win."
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
in a live chat setting...
AP – 1 hr 23 mins ago
PITTSBURGH – Backed by other world powers, President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse.
Login or Register to post comments.