[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 153 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10601-S10604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     Afghanistan/Pakistan Strategy

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to renew my call for President 
Obama to give full support to his top military commander in 
Afghanistan, GEN Stanley McChrystal.
  Several weeks ago, I stood in this Chamber and made the case for our 
Congress and the American people to hear directly, and as soon as 
possible, from General McChrystal to ensure that political motivations 
here in Washington do not override the vital needs of our commanders 
and troops on the ground. I was concerned then, as I am now, that 
continued wavering by the administration and others in Washington could 
unravel the hard work by our military and intelligence professionals on 
the battlefields of Afghanistan.
  As the ``friendly'' death toll continues to rise in Afghanistan, 
political indecision here in Washington persists. We have heard no firm 
commitment from the administration to the fully resourced 
counterinsurgency strategy the President forcefully outlined last 
spring. I came to the floor and I supported the President's 
counterinsurgency strategy fully; and with General McChrystal's recent 
report to implement that strategy to deal with the situation in 
Afghanistan, I fully supported President Obama's statements in March.
  But instead of commitment, the past few weeks have brought a flurry 
of internal debate in the administration and in the media about the 
basic tenets of the strategy and assessment--counterinsurgency versus 
counterterrorism; clear, build and hold, or fire and fall back; more 
troops versus fewer strategy; crafting a strategy or crafting a 
strategic message. In what must be a historic first, it appears I am 
more supportive of the President's own strategy than the President is.
  Amidst this indecision, our Afghan people, our NATO, ISAF, regional 
allies, and our own troops wait. The Afghans wait to hear if the United 
States will continue to stand beside them in spite of the growing 
threats of the insurgent violence of the resurgent Taliban control. Our 
allies wait to see if they were wrong to put trust and confidence in 
the U.S. leadership in the region. Our military forces and brave 
civilians who serve in Afghanistan under constant stress and mortal 
danger wait to see if their sacrifices and those of their fallen 
comrades will have been in vain.
  We have heard excuse after excuse, constant attempts to justify 
delay. Over the past week, another red herring was floated by some 
officials--we have to wait until the dispute surrounding the Afghan 
elections are resolved. This red herring--and those people peddling it 
as an excuse--has missed a truth even more applicable to the mountains 
and villages, and our towns and cities here in America--all politics is 
local, and so is the security that the Afghan people need.
  While we would all like to see a pristine election in Afghanistan--
something we still haven't accomplished 100 percent in our own Nation--
the Taliban is not waiting for election results as they continue to 
kill our troops and attack the people of Afghanistan and gain momentum. 
Security in Afghanistan will not come from Kabul. It will have to be 
built village by village and valley by valley. That is what the 
counterinsurgency strategy is designed to do.
  Even if the naysayers continue to ignore this important truth about 
security in Afghanistan, yesterday's announcement that a run-off 
election will now be held on November 7 has made that red herring of an 
excuse gone and useless. In light of this electoral process in 
Afghanistan and the progress that has been made, what are we hearing 
from the White House? As though this decision seemed something to be 
applauded, the administration continues to proclaim its indecision. 
Today, the White House press secretary said, ``It's possible,'' but 
there are no guarantees that a decision may be made before the 
election--17 days from now. More people killed, more progress for the 
Taliban, more wondering and hesitancy by the Afghans we are trying to 
serve.
  It is a simple question: Will we support President Obama's commanding 
general, Stan McChrystal, or not?
  I have heard some pundits opine that delaying a few more weeks won't 
make any difference because it will take some time for troops to get 
there anyway. Using that logic, no decisions need to be made for 
months. But it is pretty clear postponing any decision simply postpones 
the date of actual engagement. And even the right strategy won't work 
if it is not implemented on time. We are losing time, and it can never 
be recovered. It certainly won't work if it is never acknowledged as 
our strategy.
  Defense Secretary Gates waved a red flag recently, noting that the 
United States cannot wait for questions surrounding the legitimacy of 
the Afghan Government to be resolved before a decision on General 
McChrystal's troop request is made. He understands what I believe is a 
simple truth: The longer we wait, the stronger and more determined the 
enemy gets.
  Read the papers. Violence is up this season over last. Violence is up 
this year over the last. The Taliban continues to gain influence in 
parts of Afghanistan. We keep fighting with what we have, but the 
insurgents keep getting stronger. We cannot and must not wait any 
longer for a decision.
  It comes down to this: Delay leads to defeat, not victory. Our 
commanders in the field--the real experts who see firsthand what is 
required for victory--have asked for more boots on the ground, and 
there is no reason not to give them those troops now. While politicians 
and pundits debate here, the enemy is building strength and 
establishing even greater control over Afghanistan, the Afghan people, 
and future generations of potential terrorists. While we talk here, 
American heroes and our ISAF and Afghan allies are dying in increasing 
numbers in the barren regions of Afghanistan.
  In a war where winning hearts and minds is critical, delay in 
Washington is a public diplomacy disaster in Afghanistan and abroad. It 
advertises our lack of resolve to our allies and the people of 
Afghanistan. The Afghan people have been disappointed by the

[[Page S10603]]

United States before. Now they need to know with certainty that the 
United States will not abandon them again in this fight against 
terrorism. Our allies, who are at this very moment being urged by the 
Secretary of Defense to contribute to the Afghan campaign, need to know 
that we will remain by their sides to defeat this enemy together. 
Instead, the message we are sending is one of absurdity.
  Imagine this diplomatic sales job: We send a diplomat out and say: 
``Friends in Afghanistan, we would like to keep fighting the good fight 
against the terrorists and insurgents, but we haven't yet decided how 
strong our commitment is.'' I would like to see that message sell. And 
to our allies around the world: ``We would really like for you to 
contribute more troops and resources for this fight, but we need a few 
more weeks to decide what our contributions will be.'' That message 
isn't going to work either.
  I strongly doubt this new brand of public diplomacy will sell for 
much in the streets of Kabul or the villages of Nangarhar. What this 
message does tell the people of Afghanistan and the key Shura leaders 
across the country is: Don't trust the Americans, and instead look to 
the Taliban as the most likely force for the future in Afghanistan. A 
disaster.
  Perhaps even more troubling is the message this wavering sends to our 
terrorist enemies. If they simply wait us out, we will go home in 
defeat. While the administration dithers, the terrorists have honed 
their own message of hatred and extremism. Radical Islamic terrorists 
have staged suicide attacks for maximum publicity, propagandized their 
message on the Internet, and convinced their fellow terrorists-at-arms 
that they will defeat the international community.

  In the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaida--operating 
under the Taliban control in Afghanistan--was emboldened by our 
lukewarm response to their attacks and provocations. Failing to commit 
to victory now will only embolden these enemies of freedom that much 
more to stage more attacks.
  Let there be no doubt, from all that I have read and all that I have 
learned in my travels to the region, and heard here, if we fail now, if 
the Taliban returns to power in Afghanistan, the price we pay in the 
future will be far greater than any price General McChrystal is asking 
us to pay now. We have to decide which price we are going to pay.
  The stakes are high. General McChrystal's strategic assessment makes 
clear the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Taliban is 
gaining momentum. The causes of this deterioration have been debated by 
my colleagues countless times over the past several years. Pointing 
fingers for past judgments or even past mistakes, however, does nothing 
to solve the problems of today in Afghanistan. For this reason, I was 
disappointed to learn yesterday of the House majority leader's 
criticism of Members of Congress who are calling on President Obama to 
make a decision now. Well, I am one of them.
  The majority leader, in trying to justify the administration's 
wavering, accused Republicans of abandoning their focus for the past 7 
years. I don't happen to think that is true. But whatever your opinion 
on the matter is, it is simply no longer relevant. The actions of one 
administration do not justify handing victory to terrorists through the 
indecisiveness of another administration. The battle before us in the 
Afghan/Pakistan region is today. General McChrystal has laid out an 
implementation of the winning strategy for Afghanistan, which the 
President set out, and the President's decision is simple: Do we 
implement it or not?
  The answer should be simple. By announcing publicly his unequivocal 
support for General McChrystal's request, agreeing to send the troops 
that are needed, the President can send a message of firm resolve to 
our enemies and to our allies. He can give our commanders on the 
ground--the same military experts he chose for this mission--the 
resources they have requested. He can create a strategic communications 
plan that tells our enemies, our allies, and the American people of our 
intentions for the region.
  The last point is particularly important. We are at a crossroads in 
Pakistan. We can take the road of expedience and continue to listen to 
Pakistani officials, who claim they have no control over the Taliban, 
have no idea where Mullah Omar is, and have only limited capability to 
decrease terrorist safe havens in their country or we can take the 
better path and encourage our Pakistani allies to reclaim their 
national sovereignty in the tribal areas and provide the stability and 
security that is the right of a people to expect from their government. 
I believe I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we should expect 
more from our allies to whom we give so much. But they need to hear 
that we are serious about our mission there as well. Pakistan has the 
right to be concerned when the United States appears to be faltering in 
its determination to remain in the fight. We failed in this region in 
the past, so we should not be surprised if our continued wavering 
instills heightened insecurity. I have spoken in this Chamber before 
about the importance of including Pakistan in our efforts to defeat 
terrorism in the region. Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably 
linked. More aggressive action may become a good thing in Pakistan, but 
such action should be in addition to, not as a substitute for, giving 
our troops in Afghanistan all the resources they need.
  While denying al-Qaida and Taliban militants sanctuary in the border 
regions of Pakistan is critical, a fire-and- fall-back-only approach 
focusing on one part of this regional conflict will ultimately hand 
victory to the world's most violent and feared terrorists--the same 
terrorists whom our Nation witnessed firsthand attack so brutally, 
violently, and with such deadly force on September 11.
  We have seen polls that signal wavering support among the American 
people for this war in Afghanistan. But I have faith in the American 
people. They are resilient, they are proud of their country, and they 
understand the price of doing nothing. They are determined the 
sacrifices of their sons and daughters, husbands, wives, and children 
serving in Afghanistan will not be in vain. We owe them no less.
  I call on President Obama to end this indecision and to show the 
American people and our allies the same resolve and determination I 
heard in his words of last spring. It is time for him to speak out, to 
make the decision, explain why it is important, and to carry that 
message not just to Americans but to allies and enemies throughout the 
world. Last spring he said:

       Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot 
     outlast us, and we will defeat you.

  General McChrystal has said we must act quickly to defeat the 
terrorists and insurgents. Now is the time for President Obama to 
support his commanders on the ground and silence the pessimistic 
political winds whispering defeat in Washington.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that 
the time during the quorum be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during debate 
on the nominees, all time during quorum call and recess be charged 
equally to the majority and minority sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to bring to the attention 
of my colleagues the effect these holds--in most cases anonymous holds 
that are being placed by Senators on judicial appointments--are having 
on the lives of judicial officials and on the effectiveness of the 
judicial branch of government.
  So far, President Obama has nominated four circuit court judges who 
are awaiting confirmation. One of those is Andre Davis to the Fourth 
Circuit of Maryland. I mention his name because he was appointed by 
President Obama early this year. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing 
in April of this

[[Page S10604]]

year. In June, the Judiciary Committee recommended his confirmation by 
a strong bipartisan vote of 16 to 3.
  When we finally get a chance to vote on Judge Davis' confirmation to 
the court of appeals for the circuit court, I am confident it is going 
to be a lopsided vote among the Members of the Senate. Yet we have been 
denied the opportunity to confirm his appointment because some Senators 
put on a hold. Every time we tried to get a time agreement, which 
everybody says is reasonable, there was an objection. I do not believe 
it is aimed at Judge Davis; I believe it is a strategy by my Republican 
colleagues to slow down the confirmation process of judges. I don't 
know why. I really do not understand. When we have a judge who is 
qualified, who is not controversial, why would we deny the judicial 
branch of government the judge it needs in order to carry out its 
responsibility? Why would we put people through this process of waiting 
for the Senate to confirm when it is clear the overwhelming majority is 
in support of the confirmation? I think Judge Davis presents an 
example. Let me try to put a face on it. You hear the numbers, you hear 
the statistics, but each one of those holds represents another person 
being denied the opportunity to serve as a judge.
  Judge Davis has an extremely long and distinguished career in the 
Maryland legal community. He graduated from the University of 
Pennsylvania cum laude and with a JD degree from the University of 
Maryland School of Law, where he still teaches classes as a faculty 
member. He has been a judge on the District Court of Maryland since 
1995 when he was confirmed by the Senate. He has had a long career--22 
years--as a district court judge. He has presided over literally 
thousands of cases. Many of these have gone to verdict and judgment. 
His record is one which lawyers and his colleagues on the bench praise 
as being well balanced, as that of a judge who understands the 
responsibilities of the judicial branch of government. He tries to call 
the cases as the law dictates, and there is absolutely no blemish on 
his record as a trial court judge. He has been praised by lawyers in 
Maryland as smart, evenhanded, fair, and openminded. He has received a 
``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association Standing 
Committee on the Federal Judiciary. He will add diversity to the Fourth 
Circuit. When confirmed, he will be the third African-American judge to 
serve in the Fourth Circuit.
  I bring to your attention and to the attention of my colleagues Judge 
Davis because we have to bring an end to these holds where a judge is 
being held not because he is controversial, not because there is a 
problem, not because you want additional information, but just to slow 
down the process. That is wrong. That is an abuse of the 
responsibilities of each one of us, of the power each Senator has. I 
think it is important that we all speak out, whether Democrats or 
Republicans. It is just wrong. It is time to move these nominations to 
the floor of the Senate and to have votes up or down on these nominees.
  I urge my colleagues to let us get on with the business we were 
elected to do, to advise and consent to the President's appointments. 
If we have a problem with an appointment, let's speak out against it 
and let's have that type of debate. But delay for delay's sake is not 
befitting the Senate. I urge my colleagues to allow these appointments 
to go forward with up-or-down votes on the floor of the Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 30 
minutes prior to the 2 p.m. vote be reserved for the chair and ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees, with Senator 
Leahy controlling the final 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.