Dems to press for end to Afghan war during defense debate

House Democrats intend to pepper floor debate on a 2012
Pentagon spending measure with amendments and discussions about substantially
reducing U.S. troops in Afghanistan – or withdrawing them completely.

Fueled by the commando raid that killed al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden on May 1, Democrats are looking for a way to bring an end to
the nearly decade-old Afghanistan conflict. Numerous public opinion polls show
most Americans have soured on the Afghanistan conflict.

Their latest move will come over the next several days
as the House debates 2012 defense authorization legislation. Democrats have
filed a handful of amendments aimed at removing American forces from
Afghanistan.

{mosads}The chamber is expected to begin work on the legislation Tuesday
evening, with a final vote coming later in the week.

Four members have prepared an amendment that would stipulate
funds for military actions in Afghanistan could only be used for “counterterrorism
operations” like taking out “terrorist cells” and training indigenous security
forces. That amendment is sponsored by Democratic Rep. John Garamendi (Calif.),
with fellow Democrats Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Yvette Clarke
(N.Y.) and Hansen Clarke (Mich.) signing on as co-sponsors.

Welch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have filed another
amendment that would require the Pentagon to begin a “safe, responsible and
phased withdrawal of units and members of the Army and Marine Corps deployed in
Afghanistan.” It would, however, allow U.S. officials to keep in place a small
number of troops and contractors to “conduct small, targeted counterterrorism
operations.”

That amendment also would require the removal of all
“military contractors operating in Afghanistan” under funds from the Pentagon. 
If included in the enacted version of a 2012 Defense authorization bill, it
would require the Pentagon to send Congress a complete withdrawal plan within
60 days.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) has filed an amendment with the
House Rules Committee that would mandate the executive branch craft plans for
an “accelerated transition of military operations to Afghan authorities” and
for talks for a political solution to the Afghanistan conflict. It also would
require a new National Intelligence Estimate examining al Qaeda.

Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-Calif.) has filed an amendment to
require a substantial U.S. withdrawal.

And Rep. Keith Ellison’s (D-Minn.) amendment would seek an
update from the Defense secretary about the American strategy in Afghanistan
post-bin Laden.

The House panel also wrote into the legislation language
reiterating that the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Democrats strongly oppose the language, and charge the GOP
is using the wording as a tool in Washington’s years-old debate over terrorism
detainee policy.

The White House also opposes that part of the authorization
bill, and issued a warning Tuesday afternoon that if the language reaches
President Obama’s desk, his top national security aides would advise he veto
the entire bill.

Included in that same “statement of administration policy”
on the Defense legislation is another veto threat of a HASC-passed provision
that would require the Pentagon to start a competition to build the power plant
for the F-35 fighter if certain upgrades are made to the primary engine.

The Pentagon and two administrations have sought to kill a
congressionally created second F-35 engine program, arguing it is too pricey
and not operationally necessary. Alternate engine proponents say it will save
tens of billions down the road and provide an operational back up should the
first engine break down.

The White House also announced it would consider vetoing a
2012 Defense authorization measure than includes HASC’s restrictions on
implementing a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

The provision, the White House statement said, would place
“onerous conditions on the administration’s ability to implement the treaty, as
well as to retire, dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons.” 

The White House also opposes a provision in the House
panel’s bill that would seek to slow a required certification needed before the
military’s ban on openly gay service members can be formally repealed. But the
White House is not threatening a veto over the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
language.