Mr. Speaker, national syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson recently wrote a piece titled, ``Afghan Strategy: Let's Go.'' It appeared in the June 11 Raleigh News and Observer. I would like to share some of Mr. Robinson's thoughts with the…
Mr. Speaker, national syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson recently wrote a piece titled, ``Afghan Strategy: Let's Go.'' It appeared in the June 11 Raleigh News and Observer. I would like to share some of Mr. Robinson's thoughts with the House.
He began his column with this: ``Slender threads of hope are nice but do not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of Afghanistan.''
And he closed this column with these words: ``We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable?''
Mr. Speaker, these are not my words, again. These are the words of Eugene Robinson who's nationally known and respected, and he is a liberal. He's not a conservative. But the point he's making is exactly right. How many more young men and women have to give their life for a corrupt leader?
I would like to ask my colleagues on both sides to join Jim McGovern of Massachusetts--I am a cosponsor of this bill. It's H.R. 1735, the Afghan Exit and Accountability Act. It gives a parameter to the President as to how we need to start bringing our troops out of Afghanistan before 2014 or 2015.
I look at this young man's face, Mr. Speaker. His name is Tyler Jordan. His father was killed in Iraq. I look at him and he represents all the children in America who are crying because their moms and dads are coming back dead. Many are coming back without arms and legs. So Tyler represents children in America who have their family, loved ones over in Afghanistan. It's time to bring them home, Mr. Speaker.
And then the other poster has the flag-draped coffin--they call it a transfer case--coming into Dover Air Force Base. How many more families in this country have to look at the flag-draped coffin of their loved one?
Mr. Speaker, that's why I hope both sides will join Mr. McGovern and myself in H.R. 1735 because Mr. Gates has already said we will be in Afghanistan until 2014 and 2015. That's what Eugene Robinson is saying: How many more have to die in the next 3 or 4 years for a corrupt leader named Karzai that we're paying $8 billion a month to and we're cutting programs in America for children and senior citizens?
Mr. Speaker, again, I want to make reference to Tyler Jordan and his pain. I want to remember the flag-draped coffin and think how many moms and dads are having to be at the funeral home receiving the flag-draped coffin and, in many cases, cannot even look at their loved ones because they were killed in a horrendous way.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people will get behind H.R. 1735 and call their Members of Congress and ask them to join us in bringing our troops home before 2014.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do all the time in my district and on the floor of the House, I will ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform. I will ask God to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. I will ask God in His loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I will ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people here in America. And I will ask God to bless Mr. Obama, the President, that he will have the wisdom, the strength, and the courage to do what is right for the American people.
And I will close by asking three times: God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.
[From the News and Observer, Jun. 11, 2011]
Afghan Strategy: Let's Go
(By Eugene Robinson)
Washington, DC.--Slender threads of hope are nice but do
not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour
American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of
Afghanistan.
Ryan Crocker, the veteran diplomat nominated by President
Barack Obama to be the next U.S. ambassador in Kabul, gave a
realistic assessment of the war in testimony Wednesday before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Here I am using
``realistic'' as a synonym for ``bleak.''
Making progress is hard, Crocker said; but not hopeless.
Not hopeless. What on Earth are we doing? We have more than
100,000 troops in Afghanistan risking life and limb at a cost
of $10 billion a month, to pursue ill-defined goals
whose achievement can be imagined, but just barley?
The hawks tell us that now, more than ever, we must stay
the course--that finally, after Obama nearly tripled U.S.
troop levels, we are winning. I want to be fair to this
argument, so let me quote Crocker's explanation at length:
``What we've seen with the additional forces and the effort
to carry the fight into enemy strongholds is, I think,
tangible progress in security on the ground in the South and
the West. This has to transition--and again, we're seeing a
transition of seven provinces an districts to Afghan
control--to sustainable Afghan control. So I think you can
already see what we're trying to do--in province by province,
district by district, establish the conditions where the
Afghan government can take over and hold ground.''
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam veteran and former
secretary of the Navy, pointed out the obvious flaw in this
province-by-province strategy. ``International terrorism--and
guerrilla warfare in general--is intrinsically mobile,'' he
said. ``So securing one particular area . . . doesn't
necessarily guarantee that you have reduced the capability of
those kinds of forces. They are mobile; they move.''
It would require far more than 100,000 U.S. troops to
securely occupy the entire country. As Webb pointed out, this
means we can end up ``playing whack-a-mole'' as the enemy
pops back up in areas that have already been pacified.
If our intention, as Crocker said, is to leave behind
``governance that is good enough to ensure that the country
doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaida,''
then there are two possibilities: Either we'll never cross
the goal line, or we already have.
According to Obama's timetable, all U.S. troops are
supposed to be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Will the deeply
corrupt, frustratingly erratic Afghan government be ``good
enough'' three years from now? Will Afghan society have
banished the poverty, illiteracy and distrust of central
authority that inevitably sap legitimacy from any regime in
Kabul? Will the Afghan military, whatever its capabilities,
blindly pursue U.S. objectives? Or will the country's
civilian and military leaders determine their self-interest
and act accordingly?
The fact is that in 2014 there will be no guarantees.
Perhaps we will believe it incrementally less likely that the
Taliban could regain power and invite al-Qaida back. But that
small increment of security does not justify the blood and
treasure that we will expend now and then.
I take a different view. We should declare victory and
leave.
We wanted to depose the Taliban regime, and we did. We
wanted to install a new government that answers to its
constituents at the polls, and we did. We wanted to smash al-
Qaida's infrastructure of training camps and safe havens, and
we did. We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we
did.
Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan
because of the dangerous instability across the border in
nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in
Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable? Perhaps it is
useful to have a U.S. military presence in the region. This
could be accomplished, however, with a lot fewer than 100,000
troops--and they wouldn't be scattered across the Afghan
countryside, engaged in a dubious attempt at nation-building.
The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home.