Former congressman Rob Simmons, one of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate taking on Chris Dodd, just released a statement in reaction to President Obama’s address on Afghanistan that is a bit different from what some might have expected. Simmons doesn’t seem all that enthused about the surge, and would prefer to see the U.S. purchasing the crops of Afghanistan’s poppy farmers.

The President’s strategy appears to rely too much on the idea that a troop surge can do for Afghanistan what it did for Iraq. There is a role for a surge in a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan, but what the President presented last night is far from a comprehensive strategy for lasting success. I am not yet convinced that, as a whole, the strategy he outlined will ensure the swiftest, most efficient, least costly, and most of all, least bloody victory, or perhaps even victory at all.
Afghanistan is not Iraq, and the same prescription of a troop surge cannot be counted on to achieve the same results. Afghanistan presents numerous, unique challenges – no history of a strong centralized government or security force, intense rivalries among tribes, an economy in shambles, and grueling terrain, to name a few. Further, this war is not accommodating to the sort of urban ‘clear and hold’ strategy that was so successful during the surge in Iraq. Our enemies in Afghanistan are hiding in the caves and crevices of the mountains and deep in the countryside and porous border regions of Pakistan.
America’s only vital interest in Afghanistan is to deny al Qaeda terrorists a secure base from which they can train and launch attacks on Americans and our allies. But these terrorist encampments are highly mobile, and large fighting forces are not necessarily nimble enough to track and destroy them. That’s why I have long held that special operations and intelligence forces are critical to success in Afghanistan, but the President’s speech left me unconvinced that he appreciates the central role they must play, or that his plan takes necessary steps to sufficiently expand their use.
Further, we must understand the nexus between security and the Afghan economy. The Afghan economy is heavily dependent on the opium poppy trade which supplies 90 percent of the world’s heroin. Unlike Iraq, there is little water and no oil. The bitterly poor poppy farmers rely on the Taliban to protect their fields so their product can make it to market, and fund the Taliban to the tune of $300 million a year in exchange for their services. The U.S. strategy until very recently, on the other hand, has been to antagonize the Afghans by destroying and degrading poppy fields, leaving them even more dependent on and sympathetic to the Taliban. And the current policy of encouraging a shift to production of crops like wheat appears to be insufficient.
The U.S. should seriously explore a fundamentally different approach similar to one successfully employed by President Reagan to combat the heroin epidemic. In 1981, President Reagan gave protected market status to poppy farmers in Turkey and India allowing the U.S. to purchase the raw product for conversion to medicinal uses. Now, we should consider contracting with tribal leaders in Afghanistan to relieve their economic dependence on the Taliban, dry up Taliban finances, reduce heroin supply, and build lasting economic partnerships with the Afghan people.
Finally, I am deeply concerned that the President seems to be establishing an artificial timetable for withdrawal, regardless of conditions on the ground. Our troops, their families, our allies and our enemies need to know that the American Commander-in-Chief has the resolve to finish the job. I share the President’s urgency for completing the mission, but am highly skeptical that the strategy he has outlined can achieve his definition of success on his own timetable, and that the timetable itself will only extend the enemy’s resolve as it projects our lack thereof.
I look forward to learning more about the details of the President’s strategy in the coming weeks and hope he will more fully explain his plans and how he will execute a comprehensive strategy for victory.

Interestingly, a Connecticut paper characterizes Dodd’s position as that of a “supportive skeptic” of Obama’s Afghan plan, and that doesn’t sound terribly different from where Simmons stands. (UPDATE: Dodd’s office reaches out to Campaign Spot, declaring, “You say Dodd describes himself as a ’skeptical supporter.’ It would be accurate to describe as a ’skeptic’ as the story you link to does . . . As Dodd said in the story, he remains skeptical and is looking forward to consulting with our military leaders and senior diplomats to evaluate the president’s proposal.”)

UPDATE: U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon issued the following statement:

The President’s announcement on Afghanistan this evening is important because, while there is no policy proposal on Afghanistan that is without valid criticism, lack of a clear policy endangers the lives of American troops on the ground. Now that a policy decision has been made, and tens of thousands of additional troops have been committed to Afghanistan, it’s critically important that the Commander in Chief commit himself fully to achieving success. Our troops must know that we are committed to their success. And our allies and the Afghan people must have confidence that we are determined to succeed or they will never become effective partners in the effort to defeat the terrorists.
Like most Americans, I do not want to see another multi-year escalation of conflict. I’m gravely troubled about the human costs of war, and I’m apprehensive about the economic repercussions a protracted war will have on our country at a time of double-digit unemployment and record federal debt. However, in my judgment, we cannot ignore the risks inherent in allowing Afghanistan to become a safe haven for the Taliban and a launching pad for additional al-Qaeda attacks. I am particularly struck by General McChrystal’s warning that delay of a comprehensive strategy ‘risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible. It is my hope that we bring our troops home safely as soon as possible, but we should bring them home responsibly and in victory, not defeat.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Simmons campaign manager Jim Barnett has a minor objection to the description above:

Regarding your post, I just wanted to clarify with regard to Rob Simmons’ position, he does not prefer the purchasing of poppy crop over the surge. He simply believes that for a surge to result in lasting success, it must be part of a comprehensive plan and among those things we should consider is the poppy crop issue, as well as greater reliance on special ops and intelligence forces. Not a huge deal, but the nuance is important. It’s not a one or the other. Its for one to succeed you need the others too.
And I think the Dodd comment has cleared up the other issue. Dodd is coming from an anti-war perspective. Rob is not. He believes we have to stay and win, but does think the President’s strategy for doing so, as it currently is understood, leaves a lot to be desired. So, their positions are not similar, though both are skeptics.