Harman responds: Op/ed is about corruption, not troops

In a voicemail, Jane Harman takes issue with my characterization of her op/ed in today's Financial Times:

The op/ed with Michael O'Hanlon is about corruption. It's not about troop levels. And my position, which I have said publicly, is that I am hopeful that any additional troops required in Afghanistan will be Afghan troops, and that that will be possible once the Afghans have confidence that their government will deliver services.

The Harman-O'Hanlon piece suggests increasing U.S. troop levels on the condition that anti-corruption measures are taken. That's a distinct message from the one Harman delivered in the Washington Times last week, when she argued (writing solo) that it's premature to talk about U.S. troop increases.

Congress should not even be asked about more troops without first being shown evidence that some anti-corruption metrics have been achieved, not just announced.

Success in Afghanistan is essential; the United States has invested too many troops and too much treasure to fail. But raising troop levels is the wrong place to start the discussion of how to move forward. Better governance is the right place. That way the additional troops will be Afghans. It is their fight, and they should constitute the overwhelming majority of the forces fighting to protect their country.

Harman's position may have shifted since last week -- she would say it hasn't -- or today's op/ed may merely be reflective of O'Hanlon's more hawkish influence.