TODAY’S FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES 6
At the outset of the debate, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated pointedly
that Obama would have to make the case for the surge himself (Kane 2009). Pelosi
was unwilling to push Democrats in her caucus to approve deepening the nation’s
involvement in a war than many of them strongly opposed. Obama laid out his
reasoning in a December 1, 2009, speech in which he argued that the surge was
a sensible and necessary action crafted in response to a detailed internal review of
Afghan security and stability needs (The White House 2009). Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were both dispatched to Con-
gress to make the case directly. In the end, the bill passed easily in the Senate. In the
House, the bill passed by a vote of 308–114. The bill needed a two-thirds majority
to pass because it was considered under a suspension of the rules, a procedure
designed to limit debate and further amendments. Democrats were split, with 148
supporting and 110 opposing the resolution (Dinan 2010). Antiwar Democrats
like Wisconsin Representative Dave Obey argued that the money could be better
spent on domestic concerns (Silverman 2010). Representative Silvestre Reyes, a
Democrat from Texas, argued in support of the surge. He asserted that the cor-
rect decision was to support the advice of the generals on the ground, a sentiment
echoed by many Republicans (Miller 2009). Democratic Party reactions to Presi-
dent Obama’s 2015 decision to delay withdrawing the last troops from Afghanistan
were far more muted. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, known for its anti-
war stance, did not issue a statement in response to the decision (Bendery 2015).
There existed a significant degree of unity between former secretary of state Hill-
ary Clinton, who secured the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and Sena-
tor Bernie Sanders, her closest competition for the nomination, on issues related
to Afghanistan. Both Clinton and Sanders voted for the AUMF related to terrorism,
which permitted the war in Afghanistan. Both candidates also have expressed sup-
port, though it was somewhat more reserved in the case of Senator Sanders, for
the decision to leave a small residual force in Afghanistan, especially given the rise
of ISIS in Iraq after more complete troop withdrawal there. Secretary Clinton was
one of the major supporters of the 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan and helped
to lobby Congress for the funding bill that made it possible. Though he supports a
small residual force in Afghanistan, Senator Sanders expressed the belief that U.S.
troops have been deployed there for too long (Sanders 2016).
Republicans on U.S. Relations with Afghanistan
The 2016 Republican Party Platform mentions Afghanistan three times. The
Republican messages on Pakistan and Afghanistan are very similar, with a focus
on the need to defeat the Taliban in both countries. There are two departures
related to Afghanistan within the platform. First, the platform mentions Afghani-
stan within the context of clamping down on the international narcotics trade,
a logical extension given the fact that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has done
little to reduce the cultivation and export of opiates (see Narcotics and Drug Policy
