Madam Speaker, I was stationed at the Pentagon when 9/11 happened. A few months later, I was on the ground in Afghanistan as head of the Navy's anti-terrorism unit for a short mission. I watched as the Taliban and al Qaeda flowed across…
Madam Speaker, I was stationed at the Pentagon when 9/11 happened. A few months later, I was on the ground in Afghanistan as head of the Navy's anti-terrorism unit for a short mission. I watched as the Taliban and al Qaeda flowed across that border over to Pakistan. And then came that tragic misadventure in Iraq. We took that edifice of security of our Special Forces and others and placed them in that country. And what we might have done to truly have better won this global war of terror with the other elements of power, such as fix the illiteracy rate of women in Afghanistan, which is 98 percent, never occurred.
I support the President's policies not because of Afghanistan--it has spiraled too far downward to try to resurrect what we once might have done--but because of Pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world.
It should have sent chills down everybody's back when General Hayden, 3 years ago, said al Qaeda now has a safe haven in Pakistan where we cannot go, several hundred of those criminals there to plan safely against us.
I support the President's policy because, as General Gates said in a closed hearing in December, we need to seal that border. So as Pakistan, once united now again with us, moves to North Waziristan through the Taliban on its side of the border to eradicate the danger to us, the safe haven of al Qaeda, that they do not flow back over into Afghanistan whence Pakistan, who created the Taliban, might once again spread its bets.
If Pakistan becomes a failed state and al Qaeda remains, we may get out the nuclear weapons. But there are 2,000 nuclear-trained scientists in that nation who have access to the radiological material and the knowledge in a failed state potentially controlled by the Taliban and al Qaeda that endangers us.
I support this President's policy in a limited window of opportunity to help Pakistan eradicate, yes, the danger to them, but to us, that al Qaeda.
I strongly do believe that this President still needs to provide this Nation something, however, and that is what he promised us a year ago, and that was an exit strategy. Every warrior knows that when you go into battle, you have an exit strategy, which is merely benchmarks by which you measure success or failure. And if success succeeds, exit, and if the costs of failure become greater than success, exit to an alternative strategy. I believe that needs to be provided to this
Nation who, after 7 or 8 years of war, deserves to see how its national treasure is being used and if it is being successful.
But as I end, to my colleague from Ohio, I served for 31 years with the wonderful men and women of this Nation.
And I will always remember what the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said when asked about these debates here: Our men and women in the military are wise enough to know, this is your sacred duty here in the Halls of Congress, to have a debate about the use of their lives. When I led them into war, I would hope my lawmakers would have that debate if we were being used wisely.
So I thank you for bringing forward this debate, although I oppose the resolution.