Inouye Backs AfPak Troop Boost

Inouye Backs AfPak Troop Boost

One of the most powerful defense lawmakers, a Democratic senator, came out clearly today in support of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for a significant increase in troops for Afghanistan.

“At this time, I believe General McChrystal’s assessment of the current situation and his conclusions, including his assessment that coalition forces must have more daily contact with the people of Afghanistan, is correct and is what is needed if we are to achieve security and stability in Afghanistan,“said Sen. Daniel Inouye, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee. “The message I heard most clearly from our officers, our enlisted men and women, and our coalition and Afghan partners was their steadfast belief in the mission in front of them and their faith in the achievable goal of providing security and stability to the people of Afghanistan. It was remarkable to hear from the troops on the ground, both coalition and U.S. troops, that they are fully committed to this mission and want to see its ultimate success. Despite the many challenges they face, the morale of our troops remains high and their fierce dedication to the mission was truly inspiring.”

Inouye also clearly bolstered those who push a true counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan, as opposed to the camp reportedly led by Vice President Biden who want to pursue terrorists using standoff weapons and Special Operations units. And he did it for a very clear reason: “It is my firm belief that if we leave now, the Government of Afghanistan will not survive and the consequences will be detrimental to the region and will ultimately threaten the security of the United States. For these reasons, I will continue to work with President Obama and the military to ensure that our troops on the ground have the resources they need to succeed in their ultimate objective of a secure and stable Afghanistan.”

He laid out a pretty clear vision for how to get there. “This strategic approach will mean altering our military strategy to focus on counterinsurgency, building the capacity and capability of the Afghanistan security forces, working with Pakistan to remove safe havens for militants that threaten not only Pakistan’s stability but also our efforts in Afghanistan, and ensuring that appropriate resources are provided to accomplish this goal,” Inouye said. He did not address how many troops should be sent, saying he would “await specific recommendations from the military and the Administration.”

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

Nice to see there is still some sense at the top of the food chain, especially with a (D) next to their name. I hope Obama listens and doesn’t take the politically expedient route out of this one.

Respect where it is due to Senator Inouye, he was awarded the MoH for his actions in WWII. But this is the same person who is trying to raid the O&M budget to the tune of $3 billion to buy equipment the military has not requested. He wants to put several 10s of thousands of troops into combat at the same time he’s draining funds for training, repairs, spares etc. I can’t square that.

If we had stayed in Afghanistan and not been led to invade Iraq, which has been a full blown disaster from day one, we wouldn’t have a swirling descent into chaos in Afghanistan. I don’t agree with Obama on everything but he is a welcome relief to the Bush Administration.

In regards to Inouye, though he is a decorated combat veteran, he is corrupt through and through.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Sen Inouye, a decorated combat veteran, was born in Sep 1924. He is just way too old to be a Senator; his staff may be corrupt but he is just a figurehead.

Thank goodness for Wikipedia to help me refresh my memory. Sen Inouye was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for combat heroism. Many years later it was “upgraded” to the MoH by President Clinton.

Not to take anything away from the obvious heroism, courage, and service of the Senator but we should remember the source of the MoH. Allowing the “upgrade” of medals — years after the action — does tend to call their justification into question.

Charles Phillips
LtCol, USAF Ret

I disagree Daniel. I think we would have pulled out of Afghanistan regardless of whether or not we went into Iraq…we wiped out the Taliban our first time through so fast and thought that we had won the war, there’s no way we would have hung around longer than we thought we had to.

I know of a few cases where deserving people were overlooked, but otherwise I tend to agree. Thanks for the fact-check.

I’m curious as to how Iraq is still considered to be a disaster. We removed a despotic leader who was a major supporter of middle east terrorism (not to mention one who spent a decade defing not only the UN but also the terms of the cease fire that was generously granted him after his invasion of Kuwait) and are now helping Iraq establish a viable democracy. I realize many are invested in the “anything Bush did is wrong” school of thought but shouldn’t facts matter?

Iraq is far from perfect right now but it is light years better than it was under Saddam and it is on the long road toward becoming a functioning nation of laws and no longer any type of threat to the US or its neighbors. Doesn’t that count for something?

Obama said that Afghanistan was the “good” war and that he would prosecute it to a successful conclusion. He started well but if he backs off now he will have violated one of his most important campaign promises.

Obama is a disaster and a joke!

As does the fact that Japanese-Americans didn’t get the MOH during WWII. At the recommendation of the Army, the President upgraded 22 DSCs to MOHs.
I suppose we should’ve just let the racism stand because one of the recipients happened to become a Democratic Senator years after his sacrifice.

Part 1

On the one hand you write that you respect the senator’s service. On the other you imply that he does not deserve the Medal of Honor. This is the official citation for the award:

Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force.

Part 2

Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper’s bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions.

Part 3

In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

Part 4

Before you continue to bash the good senator, please explain to me how the above action does NOT display “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.”

If you can’t, you owe the man an apology.

Part 5

Sorry about all the posts, but the board won’t let me fit it in otherwise

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement