Has Rick Perry gone dovish on Afghanistan?

While in the past, Perry has been critical of President Obama’s policy on Afghanistan, he now appears to have softened his views.

When President Obama announced a timeline to begin withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan, Perry dissented.

He said in August:  “Look, I think the president made a huge mistake by signaling the enemy that we’re going to leave at a particular time. That’s bad public policy, but more importantly it put our kids in harm’s way.”

He also suggested listening more to the Generals and implicitly less to the politics of the situation.

But at the Republican debate last evening, Perry was singing a different tune.

Now he seems to have joined with Gov. John Huntsman — and even Rep. Ron Paul — that it’s time to get out and leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.

He said: “I agree with Gov. Huntsman when we talk about it’s time to bring our young men and women home as soon — and obviously as safely — as we can.”

While Perry said that there should be some American presence in Afghanistan, he said that the 100,000 American there “have the target on their back.”

Perry continued: “”I think the best way for us to be able to impact that country is to make a transition to where that country’s military is going to be taking care of their people. Bring our young men and women home. “

What a difference a war makes.

President Obama has begun withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and promised all troops out by the end of 2014 (except for those the Generals persuade him to retain in-country).

Maybe the Republicans will push him to move more quickly.

The Super-Committee that is in charge of saving the world — or at least the economy — is listed below. These 12 super-heroes are charged with producing $1.5 trillion in reductions of the deficit by Thanksgiving. And some are saying the committee shou…

The following letter to the editor was published today in response to “The Undimmed Danger of Iran’s Nuclear Program”:

We can agree that a more coherent strategy is needed in the U.S. approach to Iran’s nuclear advances, as was pointed out in the editorial on the Iranian threat. It is important to recognize, however, that time still exists to pursue a negotiated solution.

Although Iran is currently enriching uranium with advanced machines, the work is far behind schedule. Contrary to Iran’s original forecast, it has not yet installed any advanced centrifuges at its intended facility, and a large part of the reason for this delay are the sanctions that The Post’s editorial implied have failed.

While sanctions may buy time, they cannot solve the problem. The United States should continue its efforts to slow Iran’s program and maintain international pressure on Iran, while keeping the possibility open for a negotiated solution that establishes the inspections and transparency necessary to best detect and deter any eventual move to build a weapon.

Laicie Olson, Washington

The writer is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Here we go again.

The military is lobbying to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 31, 2011 treaty deadline and the Obama Administration may acquiesce.

The New York Times reported recently that the Pentagon is pressing to have 3,000 – 5,000 troops stay beyond the cut-off date agreed to by the Bush Administration – or more if they can get away with it.

The American military involvement in the Iraq War that started in 2003 has caused almost 4,500 American deaths and over 33,000 wounded — and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.

The war has also already cost American taxpayers $800 billion dollars.

Despite all this, nine years of war is not enough for the Pentagon – or the Tiresome Trio of Generalissimo Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who call for even more troops to remain in Iraq.

If it were up to the Generals, U.S. troops would never leave Iraq or Afghanistan; indeed, we might still have troops winning hearts and minds in Vietnam had it not been for the overwhelming American public opposition to the war.

Lt. General Robert Gard (USA, Ret.), the chair of our associated Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argues in a : “Maintaining U.S. troops in a hostile environment when an overwhelming majority of the population is adamantly opposed to their presence is not only foolhardy but also counter-productive,”

It seems to me that President Obama should listen to the American people and bring out troops home.

The latest developments:

Massachusetts: Consumer activist and former White House official Elizabeth Warren (D) circulates in the state on a listening tour. Recent polling shows Brown ahead of all Democrats but vulnerable. In the meantime, Rep. Michael Capuano (D) did the expected and announced he would not run for the Senate.

Virginia: Rep. Bobby Scott (D) also did the expected and decided not to challenge former Gov. Kaine (D) for the Democratic nomination.

Wisconsin: Rep. Tammy Baldwin has jumped into the Senate contest for Sen. Herb Kohl’s (D) seat. It is not clear if other Democrats will run. Former Rep. Mark Neumann (R) has also announced, and is likely to be the tea party champion against former governor Tommy Thompson (R). State Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R) also is running.

Hawaii: Rep. Mazie Hirono’s (D) is twice blessed: Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D) and ex-Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann (D) will both skip the Senate contest. It is now an easier Hirono vs. former Rep. Ed Case (D) contest.

Connecticut: 2012 CT Senate nominee Linda McMahon (R) is now expected to run again and face former Rep. Shays (R) in a primary. There are three Democrats running for the seat.

Click here for complete Senate election analysis.