DEFENSE OVERNIGHT: Obama hits pause on Afghan drawdown

by Kristina Wong and Martin Matishak - 03/24/15 6:53 PM ET

THE TOPLINE: President Obama on Tuesday announced that the U.S. will slow the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan to help the country’s new government fight the Taliban, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other extremist groups.

About 9,800 American troops will remain in the country through 2015, almost double the number initially planned.

{mosads}The president, though, said he is committed to reducing the U.S. presence to a small number based in the capital of Kabul by the end of 2016.

“This visit is an opportunity to begin a new chapter between our two nations,” Obama said at a news conference with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani after they met in the Oval Office.

“We agreed to continue to keep in place our close security cooperation,” he added. “Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place.”

Obama initially planned to draw down the nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 5,500 by the end of the year.

Ghani and U.S. military leaders though wanted a stronger U.S. presence as Afghanistan builds up its own security forces.

Obama said his plan to conclude the withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of 2016 “has not changed” and that U.S. forces will not resume combat operations, which ended in 2014.

Almost all U.S. troops are now expected to leave Afghanistan by the beginning of 2017, aside from a contingent of about 1,000 to protect the U.S. embassy and coordinate with local forces on security issues.

CONGRESS REACTS TO DRAWDOWN NEWS: Key Democrats applauded Obama’s decision, as did Republicans. But GOP lawmakers also called for more flexibility and urged the president to reconsider the 2016 withdrawal date.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.): “We cannot afford to see Afghanistan spiral back into lawlessness and re-emerge as a terrorist safe haven.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.): “This is the right decision in the effort to improve stability in the region and should signal a continued flexibility based upon circumstances on the ground.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): “The president cannot repeat the mistakes he made that allowed for ISIL’s [ISIS’s] brutal rise in Iraq – dictating policy preferences divorced from security realities.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I support President Obama’s decision to maintain current troop levels in Afghanistan through the end of the year, but I fear that number may already be too low.”

LAWMAKERS SURPRISED BY REPORT OF ISRAELI SPYING: Senior lawmakers were surprised by a report that the Israeli government spied on nuclear talks between Iran and Western powers and shared that intelligence with Congress.

“I haven’t had any of them coming up and talking with me about where the deal is,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters, about the negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear program. “I was kind of wondering who it was they were meeting with.

“I kind of felt left out,” he quipped.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a defense hawk who is flirting with a 2016 presidential bid, said report in the Wall Street Journal was “news to me.”

“No one from Israel’s ever briefed me about the agreement,” he added to reporters.

He said he already knew of any information that Israeli officials shared with him.

Graham, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, quickly added: “I hope we’re spying on the Iranians.”

Corker suggested the White House was responsible for “pushing out” the article.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters he was “shocked” and “baffled” by the espionage reports, and he made clear that he had never received any of the Israeli intelligence.

“I read that story this morning, and frankly, I was a bit shocked,” Boehner said. “There was no information revealed to me whatsoever.”

DEFENSE HAWKS RALLY BEHIND BUDGET PLAN… Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), who spearheaded a letter from 70 House Republicans refusing to back a budget proposal without more robust defense spending, says his group would support the GOP fiscal framework being considered that includes around $20 billion more for the Pentagon.

“We’re voting the budget that fully funds defense, which is where we should have been to begin with,” he told The Hill on Tuesday.

Last week, Turner and other defense hawks were told they could expect to add an amendment to the House’s $3.8 trillion budget blueprint that would boost Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), sometimes known as the war fund, to $96 billion and require no offsets.

But fiscal conservatives on the Budget Committee balked at the proposal, and the budget passed out of the panel without the change.

GOP leaders are now moving forward with a strategy that will put two plans on the floor: the original budget, and the amended plan with more defense spending.

…BUT UNHAPPY WITH HOUSE STRATEGY: Republican defense hawks griped Tuesday about a new plan to have floor votes decide whether the House budget has more robust defense spending, saying the GOP leadership keeps changing its strategy.

“I don’t like it,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). “I like what we had last week when we left here on Thursday.”

When the House left town last week, Republicans were expected to add an amendment that would increase the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund for their fiscal 2016 budget to $96 billion, and require no offsets.

Defense hawks had expected that change to be put into place when the Budget Committee marked up Chairman Tom Price’s (R-Ga.) budget last week.

But despite interventions from both Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), several fiscal hawks on the Budget Committee declined to endorse the proposal, and the budget passed out of the panel without the change to appease defense hawks.

Now, GOP leaders are going forward with a strategy that will put both the original Price budget, and the amended budget with more defense spending, on the floor. Under that maneuver, the budget that gets the most votes on the floor will become the House budget, even if both pass.

That plan puts more pressure on defense hawks, who now have more work to do to ensure that the budget with the higher defense spending gets the most votes.

“If it’s what we got, it’s what we got,” Hunter told The Hill. “What I don’t like is having something done when we leave and then having to change.”

Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said he would encourage others to vote for the bill without an offset for the war fund.

“I’m not really excited about making up for base deficiencies with OCO, but I think it’s the best alternative so I’m going to encourage people to vote for that,” he said.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

— Obama: Netanyahu issues not personal

— Senator says military members on ISIS ‘kill list’ need help ‘immediately’

— Defense hawks will back budget with higher war spending

— House Intel unveils cyber sharing legislation

— White House: No sign terrorism led to crash

Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@digital-staging.thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@digital-staging.thehill.com.