[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 158 (Wednesday, October 28, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H12013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE HAWKS ARE SQUAWKING FOR WAR AGAIN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's war hawks are unhappy. Their 
feathers are ruffled. They accuse President Obama of dithering when it 
comes to sending more troops to Afghanistan. They want the President to 
shoot first and they want him to ask questions later, but committing 
our Nation to war is the most important decision that any President can 
make. The Commander in Chief must think long and hard before doing any 
such thing. President Obama is making a careful review of the situation 
in Afghanistan, and he is right to do so.
  I've had some disagreements with the President about some of his 
policies so far, but I strongly support his desire to think things 
through and consider all of his options before proceeding. So far, the 
only option the United States has tried for the past 8 years is the 
military option, and it is painfully clear, Mr. Speaker, that it has 
not worked. A story in today's Washington Post makes that point. It 
describes a U.S. official in Afghanistan who resigned his job because 
he opposed American strategy there. This man is a patriot, and a tough 
former marine who fought with uncommon bravery in Iraq. But he believes 
that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan is making the 
insurgency grow.
  I made a similar argument when I voted against the Supplemental 
appropriations bill for Afghanistan back in May. I warned that 
continuing the military-only strategy will fuel anti-Americanism, and 
that's what is happening.
  More and more, the Afghan people see America as an occupying force 
that cares only about itself. Meanwhile, the Taliban is doing a much 
better job of winning hearts and minds. We've got to turn that around. 
The best way to do that is to devote most of our resources in 
Afghanistan to meeting the civilian needs of the Afghan people. That 
means humanitarian aid, jobs and economic development, education, 
agricultural assistance, better infrastructure, and protection from 
disease.
  That doesn't mean we should be ignoring the violent extremists in 
Afghanistan--far from it. We can go after them aggressively by using 
the highly effective tools of SMART power. SMART power includes better 
intelligence and surveillance work.
  The extremists in Afghanistan can be found in many small networks of 
individuals and groups who are spread out over the countryside. You 
need good intelligence to track, penetrate, and disrupt their 
activities.

                              {time}  1415

  We must also build up the civilian police force so they can arrest 
the extremists. Strong policing is a highly effective counterinsurgency 
tool because it's right there in the villages where the extremists 
live.
  We must also step up our diplomatic efforts. We've got to do a better 
job of engaging all the nations in the region that have an interest in 
stabilizing Afghanistan.
  These strategies will work, but they won't satisfy the war hawks. 
President Obama is right to ignore them. He must also ignore the voices 
of his own administration, calling for an escalation of the war.
  As he rethinks America's role in Afghanistan, I urge him to produce a 
strategy that relies on the tools of smart security and improves the 
lives of the people. That is the only real path, Mr. Speaker, to 
success in Afghanistan.

                          ____________________