Lawmakers Fret About Counting on Afghans, Costs in Advance of Obama Speech

As President Obama prepares to lay out his war strategy for Afghanistan, lawmakers on Capitol Hill today expressed concerns about the ability of the Afghan government and military to build on increased American support and the cost of sending additional U.S. troops.

"If the mission is to give them (the Afghans) the capacity to take on the Taliban -- and I believe that will be the principal mission stated -- that would be one important thing to happen for Democratic support," said Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, when asked on CBS' Face the Nation what it would take for Obama to get the backing of his own party.

"The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge," Levin said. "And if the president lays out the case for why our combat forces that are going particularly to the south will increase the speed-up of the Afghan army, it seems to me that that would be very, very important."

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, another Armed Services Committee member, said on CNN's State of the Union, using almost the exact words as Levin, "The key element here is not just more troops, the key element is shifting the operations to the Afghanis. And if that can be done, then I would support the president."

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there was "serious unrest" among House Democrats over yet another vote to approve substantially more money for an expanded war especially after she promised lawmakers last June that if they approved a $100 billion funding measure for Iraq and Afghanistan it was for "the very last time."

The cost of sending more troops - estimated by some at $1 million per soldier - was clearly on the minds of lawmakers, and they showed no appetite for dealing with the issue by imposing a "war surtax" as some top House Democrats, including Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, proposed last Tuesday. Pelosi said she opposed the idea.

"I think you could tax the upper brackets, $250,000, for instance, or more, but I don't think middle income America is in a position now where they can pay additional taxes because the economic stress is so great here," Levin said.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh echoed that view on Fox News Sunday, saying, "I don't think it's a good idea, not at this point...We've got to look at cutting spending in other parts of the budget before we even talk about raising taxes."

Bayh's fellow Indiana senator, Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations committee, urged that to meet the growing costs of the war, "we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change and talk now about the essentials, the war and money." Reed rejected that proposal, saying " the health care debate is essential to our economic future."

Asked whether Republicans would support Obama's request for more troops if a sizable number of Democrats didn't go along with a supplemental war spending request, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said, "We will support the president -- that is, we, Senate Republicans -- I can't speak for every one of us, but I know that we've talked enough to know that this is not a political issue with us. We believe we've got to prevail over the Taliban and Al Qaida."

On ABC's This Week, Vermont's independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said that at a time when "The middle class is collapsing...the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider...I have a real problem supporting 30,000 or 40,000 more troops and $100 billion more a year for that war on top of what we're spending in Iraq."

South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, speaking on the same show, said, "I'd like to see an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending and find some dollars that we're spending today to pay for the war, and prioritize American spending. Where does our national security rate in terms of spending? Are there things that we can do in the stimulus package? Can we trim up the health care bill and other big-ticket items to pay for a war that we can't afford to lose?"