[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 145 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11156-H11160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   TURNING POINT IN WAR ON TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. HUNTER. You know, we're at a turning point right now in the war 
on terrorism. We talked about Afghanistan today, Madam Speaker. But 
first as we do this, I would like to yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida, an Army veteran and a member of 
the House Armed Services Committee, Tom Rooney
  Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
  Just last week, myself, along with Mr. Hunter from California, sent a 
letter to the President asking him to take seriously the request of 
General McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan; ask McChrystal to 
come to this body and address the Congress--or at least address the 
Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member--to let us know what 
his plan is in a very specific and detailed manner so that we can ask 
the tough questions, that we can do the people's work and to look out 
for our men and women serving in uniform.
  Along with many members of the freshman class, that letter was sent 
last week, and along with many other letters sent to the President, 
along with letters sent to my office, phone calls asking me to support 
our troops, support the generals on the ground, support our military 
chain of command and to do the right thing in Afghanistan. And that's 
to give us a chance to win where we know that we can win.
  The United States versus the Taliban. Think about that for a second. 
The United States versus the Taliban. And what the questions are and 
what we have to do. As Sun Tzu said, Don't go to war until you know you 
can win; and when you go to war, know that you've already won it.
  So what General McChrystal is asking the President to do quite simply 
is three things to win the war in Afghanistan: First, give us a surge 
in troops more than the troops that we've already approved--at least 
43,000 more troops--to be able to secure the towns and villages and 
cities so that people feel safe, so that people come out of the 
woodwork and the intimidation of the Taliban and can feel that they can 
trust the Americans and our allies, that we're not going to leave, that 
we're going to stand by them and stand by for the people's rights and 
freedom in Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1745

  This has been an issue of a lot of contention and, quite frankly and 
unfortunately, politics, not only here in the House but between the two 
parties and across this great country. The second thing is to integrate 
with the Afghan people. It's going to be risky. We are going to have to 
come out from behind the walls, out of the Bradleys, come down from the 
turrets in the Humvees and really do a much better job of winning the 
hearts and minds of the Afghan people.
  It's going to open us up to risk, and it's going to up us up to 
harm's way, quite frankly. But I think General McChrystal understands 
that it's going to take some sacrifice; it's going to take making the 
risks and the hard decisions to be able to accomplish this goal. 
Because, on the other hand, you have the Taliban, which operates under 
intimidation, operates under violence and threats that, if you 
cooperate with the Americans, we won't forget it and you will be 
punished, and there will be recourse for the things that you have done 
to cooperate with the enemy, in that case, us, the United States.
  The third thing that General McChrystal asks of the Commander in 
Chief is to help end the corruption in Afghanistan politically. This is 
the hardest of the three prongs and I think the most important. The 
local governments, the regional governments and the central national 
government have a long, long way to go in ending what has been a long 
string of corruption in Afghanistan. That's going to be the most 
difficult aspect of General McChrystal's request. But, again, we have 
the best team in place.

[[Page H11157]]

  The President, to his credit, has assembled the finest military and 
civilian defense staff that, as a former Army captain, I could possibly 
ask for, Secretary Gates, Jim Jones, General Petraeus, even General 
Shinseki being on the cabinet, even though he's with the Veterans 
Administration, just an outstanding dream team of military brass. We 
have the best team in place.
  I urge the President to listen to them, take their counsel, do the 
right thing in Afghanistan, finish the job that we started there. 
Whether or not it was neglected, whatever argument you want to make, 
starting from today on, for the kids that are there now, that are 
manning a post, that are out there alone and cold and homesick and 
undermanned, let's do the right thing and send a message to the world 
that the United States of America will stand up for freedom across this 
great planet of ours and stand by where freedom wants to ring out.
  And I believe it does, and I believe it will; and we should not let 
politics play a role in this, and let the generals on the ground do 
their job, and then support the President once he makes that decision.
  Thank you, Mr. Hunter and Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his service in the 
Army as well as his service now to the Nation in Congress. He's really 
living up to those Army ideals. You know, now that this security 
situation in Iraq is under control and U.S. forces are beginning to 
rotate out of that region, we're confronted with a new challenge of 
equal significance in Afghanistan.
  By all accounts, the combat mission in Afghanistan has reached an 
important crossroad. In March, President Obama unveiled a new approach 
to achieve this victory in Afghanistan, reminding all Americans of the 
necessity to disrupt, and I quote from President Obama, disrupt, 
dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to 
prevent their return to either country.
  Leading the mission in Afghanistan is General Stanley McChrystal who 
was appointed by the President and Secretary Gates to evaluate the 
situation on the ground and provide a resource request detailing the 
needs to achieve his victory. The President now has General 
McChrystal's request in hand, which includes adding another 40,000 
combat troops, minimum, to the region.
  As the President considers what course to take, the security 
situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. The insurgency is gaining 
strength, and U.S. soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen, as well as 
our allies, are being increasingly targeted by ambushes and roadside 
bomb attacks. To prevent mission failure and to protect those troops 
already there, the President must act quickly to fulfill General 
McChrystal's request for more combat resources.
  Only until recently the collective commitment to this new strategy 
has come into question. Some in Congress have raised opposition to any 
type of troop surge whatsoever, even if it means defeat. They instead 
prefer to maintain or draw down our combat forces, focus on training 
local security, and rely on targeted air strikes and drone strikes. 
While a scaled back strategy might be attractive to some people, it 
would inevitably constrain resources already in short supply in 
Afghanistan, unnecessarily putting our mission and the safety of the 
coalition forces at risk.
  General McChrystal has made it clear that a small footprint 
counterinsurgency strategy will not work in Afghanistan. What's more, 
General McChrystal has clearly defined our objectives and the metrics 
for achieving victory against a resurgent Taliban and possibly al 
Qaeda. This entails our ground forces working to stand up Afghanistan's 
security and police forces as we did in Iraq and substantively weaken 
the stronghold of al Qaeda and the Taliban to the point where these 
local forces can effectively take control.
  Madam Speaker, this is nothing new. We had almost the exact same 
challenges in Iraq and we were told 2 or 3 years ago we were going to 
lose in Iraq, the surge wouldn't work; there was no way we could win. 
It was a quagmire. We were going to be stuck there, and Iraq was 
another Vietnam. Well, guess what? You can walk up to any soldier, 
marine, sailor or airman who has served over there and don't just say, 
thanks for serving, you can say thanks for victory, because we're now 
rotating home out of Iraq in victory, not defeat because of General 
Petraeus, General Odierno and the almost exact same strategy of surging 
to provide security so that we could stand up the Iraqi forces, stand 
up the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the Iraqi Government so 
that we can leave.
  Afghanistan is not Iraq, true, but that counterinsurgency strategy 
still stands. It still works. The more troops we send over to 
Afghanistan, the more secure we can make Afghanistan and the quicker we 
can leave Afghanistan victoriously. We truly are at a vital turning 
point in Afghanistan, and the President does have a very difficult 
decision to make. To quote General McChrystal: time matters. We must 
act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress.
  President Obama himself, in March, said that the counterinsurgency 
strategy, also known as COIN, is the way to defeat the Taliban in 
Afghanistan and to defeat al Qaeda. The strategy presented by the 
President and his national security team would require, quote by the 
President, executing and resourcing an integrated civilian, military 
counterinsurgency strategy.
  But now, the President, instead of listening to the general he 
appointed who is the resident expert in Afghanistan, who's on the 
ground in Afghanistan, and who the President had not even met with face 
to face until he took his Olympic sightseeing tour to Denmark when he 
finally deigned to meet General McChrystal face to face, he's now 
listening to possibly Vice President Biden. So he's going to listen to 
Vice President Biden's advice on Afghanistan instead of the four-star 
general who he put in charge in Afghanistan.

  In mid-April, Chairman Mullen and Secretary of Defense Gates actually 
replaced General McKiernan with General McChrystal because he 
specialized in counterterrorism. Counterterrorism. That's what Vice 
President Biden wants to do. McChrystal, even after being an expert in 
counterterrorism, came back and said, counterterrorism is not going to 
work. It's got to be counterinsurgency. So to have this 
counterterrorism expert come out and say counterterrorism's not going 
to work, we need a COIN strategy, the counterinsurgency strategy, we 
need to get the Afghan people on our side and the only way to do that 
is to secure the area, that's pretty phenomenal.
  As we speak right now, Madam Speaker, the Iraqi troop levels are 
going down. Equipment and resources are coming back over here to the 
U.S., and they're also going to Afghanistan. We have won in Iraq, and 
we can win in Afghanistan; and we can bring civility to the Afghan 
Government so that we can leave.
  But here's what we have to do. We have to have enough boots on the 
ground to provide security needed to properly train and equip the 
Afghan security forces, both police and army. You'll see many people 
saying that it's impossible in Afghanistan because Afghanistan's a much 
larger land area than Iraq is. That is true.
  Afghanistan has more area than Iraq does. But it's got much smaller 
concentrated population centers. There's only two really. There's RC 
South. This is the Helman province. Kandajar's there. That's where the 
marines are at this point in time. Then you have Kabul and RC East. 
That's where the Army focuses on. Pakistan's over there to the east. 
This is that mountainous range where you have drug runners coming 
across, you have people bringing weapons across, you have Taliban, al 
Qaeda and general bad guys coming across with that far arrow. Then you 
have RC South here where those marines are in Kandajar.
  Those are the two main population centers. That's what we're focusing 
on. When it comes to IEDs going off, those are improvised explosive 
devices, the roadside bombs, the 155 rounds put underground by the bad 
guys to blow us up.
  In Iraq we had a very complex road system. There were towns all over, 
cities all over, bases all over. We had to run resupply routes going 
everywhere. In Afghanistan you don't have that. You have one main road 
that rings the entire country. It's called Ring Road because it's a big 
round road. The only

[[Page H11158]]

places we have to stop these IEDs from going off are between those two 
arrows. That's it. These IED casualties that we see coming back, which 
is 85 percent of our casualties in Afghanistan right now, are 
improvised explosive device casualties.
  If we stop those, we will stop sustaining major casualties so we can 
move on to this security phase. We have to stop the IEDs and we can do 
it just like we did in Iraq; and it's actually easier to do it in 
Afghanistan. The Department of State needs to work on the Afghan 
government structure. I won't argue with anybody who says that the 
Afghan Government right now is almost completely corrupt. There are 
many charges leveled against President Karzai who says he's corrupt.
  And the Afghan government system that we have set up right now over 
there does not represent the thousands of the years of the Afghan 
tribal set-up that they've had that the Afghan people are used to. 
That's going to be a major challenge. Getting the Afghan people to 
trust in their government so that they actually go out and vote and 
they actually tell us where these improvised explosive devices are 
being implanted, that's a counterinsurgency problem.
  We need to work on the Afghan Government. We need to make sure that 
it's not corrupt. Right now I am a Congressman from San Diego, 
California. I was voted in by the people of San Diego. In Afghanistan 
you don't have that. In Afghanistan, President Karzai appoints who the 
different representatives are. So that's like President Obama saying, 
You aren't allowed to elect Duncan Hunter. What I'm going to do is I'm 
going to tell you who your Representative's going to be. That's how 
this government's set up in Afghanistan, and it does not properly 
represent the way that the Afghan people want to be governed nor need 
to be governed.
  Just as important as our military and security mission in 
Afghanistan, it's just important that we work with Pakistan so that 
Pakistan is not a safe haven to al Qaeda and to the Taliban. I want to 
read a few quotes here. This is President Obama talking about 
Afghanistan. He says, and I believe this, Afghanistan has to be our 
central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism. 
President Obama said, Troop levels must increase in Afghanistan. And as 
little as 2\1/2\ months ago, he said, For at least a year now, I have 
called for two additional brigades, perhaps three.
  The President obviously knows what needs to be done in Afghanistan 
because he's called for it. In his campaign he said, Afghanistan is the 
central fight against terrorism. When he became President he said 
Afghanistan is the central fight against terrorism. And now that it 
looks like it's difficult politically, he's stepping back from that 
assessment and he's saying, Well, we have to wait and see here. We have 
to look at this.
  I don't think that shows good leadership. What I would like to see 
the President do is listen to the head general who he appointed, who he 
put in place, and who is the smartest person possibly in the entire 
United States military on Afghanistan and knows how to win this fight.

                              {time}  1800

  I would like to yield such time as he may consume now to the 
honorable gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Thad McCotter.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Because of its 
prestige in the history of our Nation, the Presidency and its occupants 
are often envied. This view is erroneous, because within the Presidency 
comes the requirement to make painful, agonizing decisions between war 
and peace, between life and death. Many of its past occupants have said 
that it is the loneliest of places in the United States to be in that 
Oval Office when the weight of these demands fall upon your shoulders.
  Understanding this and empathizing with our President and fully 
understanding our role as the servants of the sovereign citizens who 
sent us here, we have to offer the President honest advice for his 
consideration in just such circumstances. I do so today.
  We have seen the report from the commanding General on the ground, 
General McChrystal, who was appointed by the President to implement the 
President's counterinsurgency strategy. I applauded that move. I 
applauded the President's willingness to go to a counterinsurgency 
strategy.
  We have of late seen tendered to the President the recommendations of 
General McChrystal as to how we can, yes, still achieve victory in 
Afghanistan. The report said that we can have a status quo and not 
achieve victory. We can have 40,000 troops and a full counterinsurgency 
effort--or we could have more than 40,000 and a full 
counterinsurgency--to win.
  The President is now faced with a momentous decision. The decision is 
whether we shall have victory or we shall have defeat, a defeat which, 
however disguised, as a withdrawal or otherwise, will be viewed by our 
enemies, our allies, and the Afghan people as a defeat.
  It is my sincere hope that the President supports and implements the 
General's request for at least 40,000 additional troops and a full 
counterinsurgency strategy so that the United States, their allies, and 
the Afghan people can be free.
  You see, within the context of this decision, the President must 
consider, obviously, the lives of our troops in the field, our allies 
in the Afghans. The President must weigh the consequences to our Nation 
and the world of a revanchist Taliban return to power, an emboldened al 
Qaeda, and the dangers that it imposes not only for the people of 
Afghanistan and the United States, but to Afghanistan's neighbors, such 
as Pakistan, and to our allies, who will continue to be the targets of 
terrorism, as will ourselves.
  In weighing this, he will also have to think about the honor of the 
United States, a Nation which throughout its history has posed a threat 
to tyrants and terrorists throughout the globe--not because of our 
actions, but because of our existence.
  It is our existence as a free people and a people large enough of 
heart to expand that liberty to others to defend it here for ourselves, 
that we have, throughout our history, faced challenges, both martial 
and ideological.
  Within the context of Afghanistan, a decision for a withdrawal that 
will constitute a defeat means that the United States of America will 
say to the people of Afghanistan: You will again be returned to the 
murderous regime of the Taliban. Women will be again treated as second 
class citizens. Children will again grow up in a culture of violence 
and hatred directed at other people, and the United States will have 
broken its word to them.
  Today, there are decisions even greater than the one the President 
faces being made. It is by our men and women in uniform, our allies in 
the Afghans, who every day wake up fully conscious and devoted to the 
cause of human freedom in Afghanistan, despite whatever the Taliban and 
al Qaeda and others may do to them.
  It is this type of decision, this type of bravery, this type of 
commitment to the God-given right to liberty that is possessed by every 
soul on this Earth that motivates ourselves and our allies in the 
Afghans. And I would urge the President that, in coming to your 
decision, you never forget that; that the strength of the United States 
is our willingness to sacrifice for the expansion of liberty to others 
to defend freedom for ourselves; that our security is from strength, 
not surrender; and that throughout our history and throughout the 
future of this free Republic we will never betray our word to oppressed 
peoples we have helped to come to emancipate, for in doing so we will 
betray our own birthright as free citizens and endanger our own 
security.
  Let us pray for our President as he makes this fateful decision and 
let us hope he comes to the right one--a victory in Afghanistan, a 
victory for the Afghan people, a victory for the cause of human freedom 
in our all-too-tortured world.
  I yield back to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his words so well 
put. You can see that he understands what is at stake in Afghanistan.
  What interests me about Representative McCotter's words, we just want 
the President to do the right thing. And we believe that he knows what 
the right thing is, because it was his idea. He brought up the 
counterinsurgency strategy. He said that Afghanistan

[[Page H11159]]

should be the main focus in the war on terror.
  He knows what the right decision is because he has already made that 
decision in his mind months ago. He put in General McChrystal because 
he knew that General McChrystal was the right guy at the right time to 
lead us to victory in Afghanistan.
  The President knows all of this, and we can only pray that he makes 
the right decision in Afghanistan or America will be a much less safe 
place than it is now.
  What happens if we don't win in Afghanistan? What happens if we keep 
the troop levels the same or we incrementally escalate our troop levels 
over there that is not a surge but we add a few thousand troops at a 
time, what's going to happen in Afghanistan?
  First, Afghanistan will become once again a petri dish for 
terrorists. Al Qaeda will return to Afghanistan. There's already 
networks there. One is the Hakani network. They're in touch with al 
Qaeda all the time.
  Al Qaeda will be back in Afghanistan. We won't be there anymore. The 
Taliban will have control of Afghanistan because they have shadow 
governments set up throughout the entire country.
  This is not like in Iraq where there would be a car bomb going off 
for no reason other than to hurt people. A car bomb in Iraq is not an 
alternative form of government.
  The Taliban in Afghanistan is an alternative form of government. They 
want to take over this fledgling, possibly corrupt, democracy 
parliamentary system that we have set up in Afghanistan. As bad as it 
is now, this Afghanistan Government that they have set up, the Taliban 
would be much, much worse.
  So what if we don't win? Afghanistan will become a breeding ground 
for terrorism. Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, will be 
destabilized, completely destabilized.
  I will tell you right now what is going on in talks in Pakistan and 
with different Taliban people--not because I've heard this from 
anybody; just because I know because this happened in Iraq. The Taliban 
is telling the Afghan people right now: America's going to leave. Look 
how indecisive they are. Their President, even after he said that 
they're going to surge in Afghanistan to have this counterinsurgency 
strategy, they can't make a decision. And the people of Afghanistan are 
listening.

  Why would the people in Afghanistan not go with the Taliban forces if 
they think that we're going to leave? Because if we leave, they're 
going to be slaughtered. There will be reprisal attacks against those 
Afghans who dared help America; who dared tell us where the IEDs were 
being planted at; who dared say, These guys over here are bad guys, 
Sergeant. Could you go get them for me?
  The people of Afghanistan are going to stop working with us if we 
keep being indecisive on what we're going to do over there, so Pakistan 
could possibly become destabilized.
  Out of all of the bad things happening in this world--Mexico 
imploding because of its narcotics trade and its gang war, North Korea 
shooting off nuclear missiles, Iran shooting off nuclear missiles, 
getting that fissile nuclear material there--all of these things could 
happen.
  This world is a very dangerous world. We all know that. One of the 
most likely, though, and one of the absolute scariest, is the 
destabilization of Pakistan; it's Pakistan going away and the Taliban 
getting their hands on their nuclear weapons. I don't think we would 
want to think about what would happen if the Taliban or al Qaeda got 
their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons. This entire area would be 
destabilized, and I guarantee you they would be gunning for another 9/
11. And it would be that much easier for them because we're not there 
anymore.
  And I understand we've been at war in Afghanistan since 9/11. We've 
been over there a long time, over 7 years. And I understand, Mr. 
Speaker, that the American people are tired of war. I was in the Marine 
Corps. I joined after 9/11. I did two tours in Iraq and one in 
Afghanistan in 2007. I was in the Battle of Fallujah in Iraq. I was in 
Diwaniyah. I was in Babylon.
  I'm tired of war, too. But what I want to make sure of is that our 
country stays safe, it stays secure, and it stays free, and we don't 
turn our backs on a people who we promised aid to. If we lose in 
Afghanistan, it will embolden al Qaeda, it will embolden all of our 
enemies, and we will see increased attacks.
  This is not a scare tactic, Mr. Speaker; this is simple fact. If 
we're not there, if America does not lead, our allies will not lead 
themselves. America is the leader in Afghanistan and our allies are 
following them.
  I served with the British, Canadians, Australians, the Poles, Czechs, 
the Italians, Spaniards, French. I served with a whole lot of people, 
other countries that are in Afghanistan, and they're following us. We 
are the leaders for this war.
  We are providing that leadership role and we're the economic pillar 
for this war, too. And it is an expensive war. Wars are extremely 
expensive. Afghanistan, with its tribal layout, its mountainous 
regions, its desert, its terrain is more complicated than Iraq is.
  This is not easy. We aren't saying that this is easy. We're saying 
this is going to be very, very difficult. But we have the willpower, 
and I think we have the ability. We have the leader in General 
McChrystal. We sure as heck have the men and women who want to serve 
and win in Afghanistan. We can do this.
  So, consistent with General McChrystal's recommendation, the initial 
strategy outlined by the President almost 7 months ago constitutes the 
best way towards accomplishing all of these goals. My hope and Mr. 
Rooney's hope, and it should be every America's hope, is that a 
favorable decision is reached promptly so that our military, this 
Congress, and the administration can begin doing everything they can do 
to provide the full resources necessary to execute a counterinsurgency 
strategy.
  We have to know here in Congress what the President wants to do. We 
need to know what his decision is so we can get the men and women 
serving over there right now, the ones getting shot at, the ones 
getting IEDs, the ones getting rocketed, we want to get them what they 
need.
  One of the things they need is the support of the American people. 
Until President Obama comes out, makes his decision, lets Congress know 
about it so we can inform our constituents and we can tell them why 
it's important that we win in Afghanistan, our men and women overseas 
right now are suffering.
  You don't think that the privates, sergeants, corporals, staff 
sergeants at the officer corps in Afghanistan are looking back right 
now, watching C-SPAN watching CNN, and saying, Our main General, 
General McChrystal, the man who we're following, the man who's asked us 
to fight, the man who's asked us to drive these dangerous roads, the 
man who's asked us to kill the enemy for our country and our lives are 
put in danger, he's asking for 40,000 troops, and the administration in 
D.C., in Washington, is not giving them to him right now, they're 
thinking about it.

                              {time}  1815

  We've had enough time to think about it. It's been 7 years. Was our 
strategy in Afghanistan under President Bush the right one? No, it 
probably wasn't. It probably was not the right one. We were focused on 
Iraq, and frankly I think that's a good thing, too, because we have won 
over there now. But we need to shift focus to Afghanistan. That's what 
this President said he would do. Experience tells us that wars must be 
run by our military leaders, not politicians or bureaucrats back here 
in D.C. I don't want to create strategy for Afghanistan. That's not my 
job. My job, as a congressman, is to give the military men and women 
the support that they need to get the job done for whatever the 
President, who's Commander in Chief, sets out as their strategy and 
their goals. You don't want me running a war. You don't want Vice 
President Biden running a war, either. That's why General McChrystal is 
there. That's why General Petraeus is there. That's why General Odierno 
is there. They are the resident experts.
  The President rightly recognizes the importance of defeating al Qaeda 
and the Taliban, but in order to do so, he must stay clear of political 
currents and do what is right. And once more, I

[[Page H11160]]

truly believe that he knows what is right. Because what General 
McChrystal, once more, has brought to the President in his resource 
request was what the President asked him to do.
  On two occasions over the last few years, I have been to Afghanistan, 
both as a Member of Congress and as a Marine. While there, I served 
alongside and shared experiences with the best that this country has to 
offer. They are truly the greatest generation. People that have so much 
opportunity, young men and women, they could go to college, they could 
pretty much do whatever they wanted to do. Instead, they went and 
served. I have had the awesome opportunity of serving with them. And 
they have dutifully undertaken their mission to protect our Nation and 
the Afghan people. I have also spoken to many civilian leaders and 
military leaders outside of Afghanistan, and they know what the right 
thing to do is. Our goals in Afghanistan will become further out of 
reach. In fact, they become more out of reach every single day that we 
dally here at home and not give them what they have asked for.
  If we significantly reduce our military presence right now, at this 
critical time, the war in Afghanistan will be lost. Understanding this 
risk, I sincerely hope that President Obama, as Commander in Chief, 
will follow the recommendation of his appointed military commander and 
commit his full support to this important mission.

                          ____________________