Should Congress weigh in on the war in Afghanistan?

WASHINGTON — Don Young wants to talk about the war in Afghanistan.

Alaska's sole congressman signed on last week to a resolution designed to stir broad conversation about the 16-year conflict in Afghanistan, with hopes of urging more discussion in Congress and awareness among American citizens.

Members of a team based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson — the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, known as the 4-25 — are scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in a few months. That fact did not escape any members of Alaska's delegation as they considered this issue.

"Maybe we can have this debate, people can talk about it, and maybe bring it to the attention of the American public, because the American public, they don't even think about Afghanistan," Young said. "But what is the purpose of what we're trying to do? I think we ought to have this debate."

The 4-25's deployment "should cause us all to say, 'OK, what is going on in Afghanistan?' " said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. "We don't want to forget why we have sent men and women to go over there to fight for us. We need to know that the cause is right, so to have that conversation in Congress is not unreasonable."

The bill would prohibit funding for military operations in Afghanistan unless the president submits a justification to Congress, and Congress responds with authorization.

The members signed on to the bill said they mainly want to see a real debate in Congress over the war.

Young said he isn't antiwar but he wants a conflict to solve a problem, and he resents the fact that Congress has been so reluctant — since World War II — to actually declare war, as opposed to authorizing the president to use military force, and appropriating the funds.

"We have been in Afghanistan now 16 years," Young said in an interview Thursday. "The question I have is, what's our goal?"

"No one's ever told me why we're there," Young said. "Originally we were after (Osama) bin Laden. And we got him. But we're still there. And I, very frankly, want to find out the answers."

House "Speaker (Paul D.) Ryan, he can initiate this today if he wanted to," said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.

[GOP debate over health insurance remains vexing, say Alaska's U.S. senators]

Congress has continued to fund the war in Afghanistan since it passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks.

As of Friday, 2,253 Americans have died in Afghanistan conflicts — Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Freedom's Sentinel — and more than 20,000 have been wounded, according to the Department of Defense.

Over in the Senate, Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., have called for a new AUMF against the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban. The two say it's time to cast a vote on the war.

Alaska Sens. Murkowski and Dan Sullivan both said they generally have chances to learn about progress in Afghanistan already.

"I'll have an opportunity on the Senate side, as a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee … to learn more," Murkowski said. The subcommittee allocates funding to the Department of Defense each year.

Sullivan too said he has more opportunity to conduct oversight of the conflict in Afghanistan as a member of the Armed Services Committee, where "we aggressively conduct oversight."

Sullivan is also an active-duty member of the Marine Corps Reserves and often meets with top brass from all branches.

Looking at Young's resolution in the House, Sullivan was clear: "I do not support at all any kind of threat of cutting off military funding to troops in combat, period."

Sullivan said he doesn't want something like that "hanging over the heads of our troops, in the back of their mind, like, 'Jeez, am I gonna get funded as I'm going on a combat patrol because some senator who is against the Afghan war or who just doesn't like Donald Trump decides to filibuster the AUMF and then all the sudden you cut off funding?' To me, I'm utterly opposed to that approach," he said.

The new administration is still laying out its strategy for Afghanistan, but Sullivan said he feels confident in the mission there and he wants the president — any president — to have broad authority over the war.

"I want our president, whether he's Republican or Democrat, particularly when it relates to war on terror issues, to not have an AUMF that is overly restrictive," Sullivan said.

All three of Alaska's lawmakers agreed, however, that more public awareness of the war is needed.

Young said that when he was a child during World War II, people had "Victory Gardens, we had metal collections, we had savings stamps, savings bonds — that's the way we financed the war. We had blackouts, we had watchtowers, we had gas rations, we had sugar rations, we had meat rationing. Everybody was involved.

"If we hadn't been involved, it would've been another long war," Young said.

"This way, we will not get out of Afghanistan until the public becomes aware of what we're trying to achieve. And I'm not sure what we're trying to achieve. I'd like to discuss that."

"I don't disagree with (Young) at all on that," Sullivan said.

"We need to be very clear, we have men and women in combat, in harm's way right now. Their families know it. Our enemies know it," he said.

Young also suggested hitting Americans in the pocket as a way of keeping their attention on wars abroad. While it's not part of the bill, Young said he'd like to see a "conflict tax" on every American whenever the president enters the U.S. into a conflict, ending whenever Congress officially declares war. That, he said, would get people's attention and demand action from Congress.