[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4572-H4573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: JUST WORDS?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the National Security Strategy released 
by the White House late last month has plenty to recommend. This 
administration, on paper and in its rhetoric and proclamations, clearly 
has a broader view, beyond the use of military force, of how to keep 
Americans safe.
  The strategy puts a premium on diplomacy and multilateral cooperation 
as key tools of advancing our security interests. It discusses clean 
energy and a reduced dependence on foreign oil. It recognizes the 
threat, within a national security context, of global climate change. 
It expresses a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and pledges 
support for fledgling democracies. It includes, under the rubric of 
national security, human rights, global health, and development aid. 
Madam Speaker, it even emphasizes the important national security 
implications of investing in education and human capital right here at 
home.
  Frankly, it sounds a lot like the smart security platform that I have 
been advocating for the last several years. I'm glad the folks at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are getting there, also.
  And yet, Madam Speaker, I can't reconcile all of those promising 
ideas with the ongoing prosecution of two wars, which are bankrupting 
our country morally and fiscally, without reducing terrorism threats or 
contributing to our national security.
  The situation on the ground in Afghanistan remains very tenuous. 
While Americans, other NATO forces, and civilians continue to shed 
blood, insurgents and militants continue to thrive. As we prepare to 
move in on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar, all evidence indicates 
that we weren't successful at the more modest task of driving them out 
of Marja this very winter. Besides, according to General McChrystal, 
the Kandahar offensive isn't even ready to start on time.
  At the same moment, we have an unreliable partner in President 
Karzai, a partner who has now dismissed two of his top aides who had 
the best working relationship with the United States. And General 
Petraeus is on Capitol Hill this week to tell the Armed Services 
Committees that the last 15 to 18 months have been about installing the 
``inputs'' in Afghanistan, and that now, finally, we are ready to reap 
some ``outputs.''
  Well, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, and respect to the 
General, we are all pleased that he is fine after briefly passing out 
in the Senate hearing room earlier this week, but in all due respect, I 
think the American people feel as though they have been providing 
inputs for more than 8\1/2\ years now. It's particularly difficult to 
accept this explanation when we've seen

[[Page H4573]]

$275 billion fly out of the Federal Treasury to pay for inputs in 
Afghanistan. It's long past time when we can expect to see results, or 
outputs.
  But, tragically, there will be no meaningful outputs until we make a 
U-turn and reverse the strategy 180 degrees. The outputs will come 
when, and only when, our Afghanistan policy actually adheres to the 
core principles offered in the administration's National Security 
Strategy.
  So my urgent plea to the White House is to embrace its own advice. If 
they are serious about a new approach to defending and protecting 
America, let's not wait until July 2011. Bring our troops home now.

                          ____________________