Madam Speaker, I wish everyone would listen to these words from a column in the current issue of the American Conservative magazine. This column says: ``We ran Saddam out of Kuwait and put U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, and we got Osama…
Madam Speaker, I wish everyone would listen to these words from a column in the current issue of the American Conservative magazine. This column says: ``We ran Saddam out of Kuwait and put U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, and we got Osama bin Laden's 9/11. We responded by taking down the Taliban and taking over Afghanistan, and we got an 8-year war with no victory and no end in sight. Now Pakistan is burning. We took down Saddam and got a 7-year war and an ungrateful Iraq.
``Meanwhile, the Turks who shared a border with Saddam, have done no fighting. Iran has watched as we destroyed its two greatest enemies, the Taliban and Saddam. China, which has a border with both Pakistan and Afghanistan, has sat back. India, which has a border with Pakistan and fought three wars with the country, has stayed aloof. The United States, on the other side of the world, plunged in. And now we face an elongated military presence in Iraq, an escalating war in Afghanistan, and potential disaster in Pakistan, and being pushed from behind into a war with Iran.''
And then in the December 3 issue of The Washington Post, it says: ``President Obama's new strategy for combating Islamist insurgents in Afghanistan fell on skeptical ears Wednesday in next-door Pakistan, a much larger, nuclear-armed state that Obama said was `at the core' of the plan and had even more at stake than Afghanistan. Analysts and residents on both sides of the 1,699-mile border expressed concerns about Obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan.''
And on that same day, The Washington Post had a headline that said: ``A deadline written in quicksand not stone.''
Now, I think most Americans feel that 8 years in Afghanistan is not only enough; it's far too long. After all, we finished World War II in just 4 years. Now under the President's most optimistic scenario, we are going to be there another year and a half, that's 9\1/2\ years, and we're going to be there, we have 68,000 troops there now. They want to add 34,000 more at a cost of $1 billion per thousand per year, which means over $100 billion a year.
The Center for War Information says we've already spent almost a half trillion dollars in war and war-related costs in Afghanistan at this point.
And then I would like to ask, Who is in charge? Because this weekend on the interview program, Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates said, Well, the year and a half withdrawal plan presented by the President at West Point really doesn't mean anything, that we're going to be there probably another 3 or 5 more years. That would bring our time there to 11 or 13 years. That is ridiculous in a country like Afghanistan, a very small country where we are fighting a very small force that has almost no money.
And then I understand from one of the previous speakers that President Karzai said that he needs American troops to be there another 15 or 20 more years. Well, he wants our money, that's for sure, like any gigantic bureaucracy. And what does any gigantic bureaucracy want? They want more money and more employees. So the Defense Department, being the most gigantic bureaucracy in the world, is going to continue to want more money and more personnel.
But when we have a $12 trillion national debt and almost $60 trillion in unfunded future pension liabilities, Madam Speaker, we simply can't afford it. We have to start putting our own people first at some point. It's not going to be long before we're not going to be able to pay our Social Security and veterans' pensions and things we have promised our own people with money that will buy anything, if we keep spending hundreds of billions for very unnecessary wars.
Now, I would like to mention just a couple of things about Pakistan. In the Los Angeles Times on November 1 in a story about Secretary Clinton's visit to Pakistan, it said: ``At a televised town hall meeting in Islamabad, the capital, on Friday, a woman in a mostly female audience characterized U.S. drone missile strikes on suspected terrorist targets in northwestern Pakistan as de facto acts of terrorism. A day earlier, in Lahore, a college student asked Clinton why every student who visits the U.S. is viewed as a terrorist. The opinions Clinton heard weren't described in voices of radical clerics or politicians with anti-U.S. agendas. Some of the most biting criticisms came from well-mannered university students and respected, seasoned journalists, a reflection of the breadth of dissatisfaction Pakistanis have with U.S. policies toward their country.''
This is a country, Madam Speaker, that the Congress in a voice vote at a time when almost no one was on the floor, most Members didn't even know it was coming up, voted to send another $7.5 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan on top of $15.5 billion that we've spent since 2003 there already.
This is getting ridiculous. A country that we are sending billions and billions and billions in foreign aid to, and it's becoming so anti- American, and they don't appreciate this aid at all. We simply can't afford to keep doing these ridiculous and very wasteful expenditures. And I will say again, we need to start putting our own people first once again.