Major shift by Rep. Thompson on Afghan war

<p>A House resolution to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan failed last week, as expected and as it did last year.</p><p>But 29 members, including North Coast Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, changed sides Thursday and joined those voting for the measure.</p><p>In a House usually divided by party line, the pullout measure had bipartisan sponsorship - liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, conservative Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina and Libertarian-leaning Ron Paul of Texas.</p><p>The resolution was soundly rejected 321-93. There were eight Republicans among the yes votes along with Thompson and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma. It was a symbolic vote, but war critics noted the gain from last year's 356-65 rejection of the same resolution.</p><p>“I think it's time to get out of there,” said Thompson, elected last fall to his seventh term.</p><p>Woolsey, who co-sponsored the resolution in 2010 and again this year, is a House Progressive Caucus member with a long record of anti-war sentiment.</p><p>Thompson, a Vietnam War combat veteran who serves on a House subcommittee on terrorism, wants to withdraw from Afghanistan for three main reasons: The war's soaring cost, now at $416 billion since 2001, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's corruption and the misplaced emphasis on fighting Taliban insurgents on their home turf.</p><p>“We should be rethinking what we're doing in Afghanistan,” Thompson said.</p><p>Rather than battling the insurgents with an occupying force of 100,000 troops, the U.S. should mount a calibrated campaign against terrorists in such places as Pakistan and Yemen, as well as New York and Denver, he said.</p><p>“We need to root out these guys where they are,” Thompson said, noting al-Qaida — the militant Muslim organization responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — is virtually absent from Afghanistan.</p><p>Thompson said he disagreed with the Dec. 31 troop withdrawal deadline in the Kucinich resolution and declined to set a fixed date, saying it should be achieved “as quickly and safely as possible.”</p><p>The House vote came as Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told congressional committees last week that he is formulating options for the withdrawal of forces set to begin in July.</p><p>Taliban momentum has been blunted in much of Afghanistan and reversed in some areas, Petraeus said, adding that the gains of the past year are “fragile and reversible.”</p><p>Also last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found nearly two-thirds of Americans say the war is not worth fighting.</p><p>The success of Marines and Army special forces in seizing Taliban-held territory in southern Afghanistan in the last six months is significant, said Seth Jones, a RAND Corp. expert in counterinsurgency. </p><p>“If they lose the south, they are in deep trouble,” said Jones, who visited the southern provinces, considered “the heartland of the insurgency,” two weeks ago.</p><p>Jones, who previously worked for the U.S. Special Operations Command, predicted a downsizing of American conventional forces as more of the military effort is handed to special forces.</p><p>But stamping out the insurgents remains problematic as long as they enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan, Jones said.</p><p>The war is not about bringing democracy to Afghanistan, he said. “I'm all for democracy, but that in and of itself will not make Afghanistan safer,” Jones said.</p><p>Backers of the war, which cost $6.7 billion-a-month last year, contend that if the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan, they once again would partner with al-Qaida and allow terrorist training camps in the remote, impoverished nation.</p><p>“If they (al-Qaida) become a threat, we can always go back in,” Thompson said. “It's something we have to stay on top of.”</p><p>But sending a large Army into the Mideast, Africa or Asia is no longer a viable approach, he said, noting Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently told West Point cadets that any defense chief who advocated it in the future should “have his head examined.”</p><p>“Military action needs to be absolutely the last option exercised,” Thompson said, a view he said was shaped by his experience in Vietnam.</p><p>The U.N.-sanctioned action against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was effective, he said, because it involved U.S., European and Arab collaboration.</p><p>“We went into Afghanistan and Iraq by ourselves,” Thompson said. “We need to no longer be the Lone Ranger.”</p><p>You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.</p>