[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 183 (Monday, December 8, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10799-S10800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FOREIGN POLICY DEVELOPMENT

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to discuss another issue I have had a 
great deal of concern about for many years, particularly since the time 
I came to the Senate. That is the role of the legislative branch in the 
development of foreign policy and the abrogation of the legislative 
branch during this past administration when it comes to foreign policy. 
Over the past nearly 8 years, the executive branch has been a runaway 
train. Unfortunately, this isn't simply the Bush administration. It 
also is the policies that have come out of the Department of Defense 
and the Department of State. We have observed over the past year the 
negotiation of a future relationship with Iraq that has gotten almost 
no attention in the Congress. This is not simply a SOFA, status of 
forces agreement, as we have seen in dozens of other countries around 
the world which are implemented pursuant to our legal authority to be 
in those countries. This also is a strategic framework agreement, a 
document which defines our future relationship with Iraq, which in Iraq 
had to be approved by their Cabinet, by their Parliament, and now will 
be subject to a plebiscite and which, in the United States, simply has 
been approved by the signature of one individual out of the Department 
of State.
  I was among many who began expressing my concern about this a little 
more than a year ago. I believe it is stark evidence of how the 
legislative branch, the Congress, has abrogated its constitutional 
responsibilities in the area of the evocation of foreign policy.
  I am going to put a map up in the Chamber. It is a very busy map, but 
I want to take time to explain something else. I think it is very 
important for my fellow Senators and people over in the other House of 
the Congress to understand the implications of what has been going on 
in Afghanistan.
  We have heard throughout the Presidential campaign that we should be 
focusing our energy away from Iraq and into Afghanistan. We have been 
having these types of discussions without the articulation of a clear 
strategy. We are moving to the point where we are soon going to have at 
least 60,000 American troops in Afghanistan.
  When I was there as a journalist in 2004, we had about 10,000 
American troops in Afghanistan. It is going to be very important, as 
the new administration comes in, to impress upon not only the 
administration but individuals in the State Department and the 
Department of Defense that they must come forward with a strategy that 
will

[[Page S10800]]

enable us to know when the end comes. You do not have a strategy if you 
cannot articulate the end point.
  We have another very serious problem with respect to our presence in 
Afghanistan, and that is all of the logistical lines into Afghanistan 
are in areas that could cause the United States great concern.
  This--I am going to draw a circle around it on this busy map--is 
Afghanistan right here. Afghanistan is a land-locked country, as 
everyone in this Congress surely knows. The supply routes into 
Afghanistan are principally through Pakistan: from Karachi up into 
Peshawar, through the famed Khyber Pass, which caused the British such 
problems and difficulties more than 100 years ago, in through the 
mountainous areas of the federally administered tribal regions and the 
Northwest Frontier Province very lawless areas where al-Qaida and the 
Taliban operate heavily. So 80 percent of the supplies that go into 
Afghanistan go via land through Pakistan.
  To the north, Uzbekistan has indicated it probably will not allow 
alternate supply routes if problems occur in Pakistan. Iran, obviously, 
is not going to allow supply routes to go in to supply our troops in 
Afghanistan, which leaves Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan is very close to 
Russia, which we have been in very difficult relationships with, 
particularly since the incidents in Georgia last summer.
  So what does this mean? There is an old saying--Frederick the Great, 
supposedly, was the first to say it--and that is: Without supplies, no 
army is brave.
  If you look at this route in Pakistan, over the past 6 months this is 
what has happened:
  In March, there were attacks in the Khyber region that set fire to 40 
to 50 oil tankers. These are convoys that are not protected by the 
American military because the American military does not operate in 
combat areas in Pakistan. So in March: 40 to 50 oil tankers.
  In April, Taliban raiders stole military helicopter engines valued at 
$13 million.
  In November, 12 vehicles were hijacked near the Khyber Pass. Two 
humvees were included in the hijackings.
  Last week, 22 more vehicles were destroyed at a truck stop between 
Peshawar and the Khyber Pass.
  Yesterday, 145 vehicles, trailers, and containers were destroyed in a 
warehouse just outside of Peshawar.
  Today, there was a separate attack at a shipping terminal near 
Peshawar which destroyed 50 trucks carrying containers.
  This is millions and millions of dollars worth of equipment in an 
area where we in our present policy cannot provide military security. 
We have Pakistani security forces, we have Pakistani truck drivers, and 
we are in a very delicate relationship with Pakistan itself.
  I am hoping that in this type of situation, where 80 percent of our 
cargo is coming in through Pakistan, and where our ability to resupply 
our military from other areas depends on our relationship with Russia, 
that our new administration and the leadership in the State Department 
and the Department of Defense will take a very hard look at how many 
military people we want to have in Afghanistan, what it is we want them 
to do, how we are going to resupply them, how we are going to conduct 
our relationships inside Pakistan, what our alternatives might be if 
those convoys continue to be interrupted, and, finally, how we will 
know when we have concluded our strategic purpose in this part of the 
world.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________