America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We were told in 2002 Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions to try to justify the war. It's time to tell…
America went to war against Iraq based on a lie. We were told in 2002 Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The previous administration even pursued torture to try to extract false confessions to try to justify the war.
It's time to tell the truth. The truth is, we should not have prosecuted the war against the Iraqi people. The truth is, the Democratic Senate could have stopped the Iraq war in 2002. The truth is, we Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 to end the war. The truth is, this bill continues a disastrous war which has cost the lives of thousands of our soldiers. The truth is, the occupation has fueled the insurgency. The truth is, the Iraq war will cost the American and the Iraqi people trillions of dollars.
As many as 1 million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war. Don't tell the American people you're ending the war by continuing to fund the war. Don't tell the American people that the war will end when their plans leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. Don't tell the American people that the way out of Afghanistan is to escalate and more counterinsurgency.
Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Come home, America. Come home.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2346, War Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2009. This bill devotes an additional $84.5 billion to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2009. I believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation to fulfill in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must remain dedicated to reconstruction, stability and prosperity in these countries and in the region.
The U.S. cannot be in and out of Iraq at the same time. The U.S. has agreed to withdraw all combat troops from Iraqi cities by July of this year. However, recent news reports indicate that some combat troops will remain beyond this date. Our continued funding of war operations in Iraq only ensures our continued presence and undermines our stated goals for withdrawal by 2011. Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all of our troops and contractors home. We must meet our moral obligation to rebuild Iraq and support viable solutions to the refugee and internally displaced populations. We must hold ourselves responsible for the death of over 1 million innocent civilians in Iraq.
Funding of expanded combat operations in Afghanistan will not meet the security objectives of the U.S. Sending additional brave American service members to Afghanistan does not increase security and it is not an act of diplomacy. Sending additional troops sends one message: The U.S. is ramping up combat operations. This message only encourages the Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise. We have ensured that the months and perhaps years ahead will be bloody. And we have failed to present an exit strategy.
Bombing raids and drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have inflamed the civilian populations in these countries. Innocent civilians are killed in these massive and unpredictable attacks. This includes innocent children, mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters and brothers. Communities, homes and infrastructure are destroyed. The number of refugees and the internally displaced continue to rise from the destruction.
The brutalities of war produce more than news reports of so-called ``collateral damage.'' Taliban and insurgent recruitment profits from these failed policies. The drone attacks are propagating extremism in the targeted areas. Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell maintains that drone attacks are not an effective counterinsurgency technique. If the Administration will not stop the drone attacks, Congress must use the power of the purse to ensure their cessation.
Ninty percent of the resources devoted to Afghanistan over the last eight years have gone to support military resources. This is contrary to the counter-insurgency strategy put forth by General Petraeus that calls for an 80-20 split, that devotes 80 percent of resources to political solutions and only 20 percent of resources to military operations. General Eaton, who trained Iraq Security Forces in 2004, has echoed this strategy. This bill fails to correct the imbalance and continues the failed status quo.
We need to provide for the traditional sense of security by first ensuring economic security, health security, and job security for all. The roots of terrorism begin not in hatred, but in desperation. All people seek the basic necessities such as food, clothes, shelter, good health, and the ability to earn a decent living. If we can level this playing field, there is no desperation that may potentially evolve into hatred. We have failed to meet these objectives in Afghanistan.
Stability in Afghanistan requires that aid dollars reach local Afghans, Afghan institutions and organizations. The current instability of Afghan institutions must be replaced with strong education and health care systems, judiciary and law enforcement systems, workforce development and transportation systems. These institutions must be built and run by Afghans. The current practice by which foreigners fill high-skill and high-level positions will leave Afghanistan without the skills and leaders to ensure sustainable, long-term stability in the country.
The U.S. must partner with Afghans to empower women and girls. Currently, one in six women die in childbirth in Afghanistan; 80% of women are illiterate; and development assistance has not reached Afghan women. We can encourage and foster reform by investing in Afghan institutions that create educational, economic, social and political opportunity for women.
National security will not be achieved through military might but rather through our dedication to supporting Afghans as they build a foundation of human security, social security and economic security.
Security cannot blossom from the ravages of war. Terrorism will not be stopped by acts of terror.
[From the Nation, May 12, 2009]
The Politics of Escalation
(By Tom Hayden and Joseph Gerson)
Congressional leaders are cooperating with the Obama
administration in quashing any serious criticism of growing
military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Indications are that there will be no benchmarks or
conditions set on the $96 billion supplemental appropriation
before Congress beginning this week. The administration,
which once promised no more rushed supplemental
appropriation, is rolling funds for war and swine flu into
one package, while not yet disclosing how much is earmarked
specifically for Afghanistan. Rep. David Obey says he wants
to give the Obama administration a one-year deadline for
results, which likely means making it more difficult to
withdraw from a deepening quagmire.
The only current Congressional vehicle for dissent is a
proposed amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) that
requires the secretary of defense to report on an exit
strategy from Afghanistan by this December, six months after
Congress has appropriated funds for escalating the war. Even
that modest measure, with fifty co-sponsors at present, has
met with administration resistance to an exit strategy with
benchmarks.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire for what she knew
about Guantanamo waterboarding and when she knew it, is going
along with the administration by preventing the McGovern
amendment from being voted on. Congressional leaders believe
that war opponents are not sufficiently powerful to either
require a vote on the McGovern measure to achieve more than
two hours of debate on the supplemental, which could also
include soliloquies on the swine flu.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus has met with President
Obama and, according to sources attending, will not be
opposed at this point to his Afghanistan-Pakistan policies.
Instead, the caucus is sponsoring a series of informational
hearings on public policies for the region.
The Senate, with the possible exception of Sen. Russ
Feingold, is not expected to question the Obama policies,
either.
Insiders say the dominant message behind closed doors is a
political one, not to embarrass the president. On policy, one
knowledgeable expert reports, doubt is widespread in Congress
and ``no one has any idea where it will all end.''
The desire to protect the resident may shy Democrats away
from demands that were routinely made of the Bush
administration: requiring regular reports on an exit
strategy, transparency in the budgets for war, clear
definitions of casualty levels on all sides, application of
human rights standards in detention centers, and others.
It is understandable that the economic crisis and high
expectations for the new president have deflected
Congressional Democrats away from their oversight role. As
the quagmire deepens, however, antiwar questioning will rise
again. The danger is that by then the Obama administration
will be engulfed in the politics of escalation, as happened
to earlier Democratic presidents.
Will the gentleman yield?
Well, of course I will be voting against the rule. I want the war to end.