[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 192 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8906-H8907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     END THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN NOW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday The New York Times reported 
that our Ambassador in Afghanistan, Ryan C. Crocker, told a group of 
journalists that U.S. troops could stay in Afghanistan long past the 
President's 2014 deadline if the Afghan Government asked us to stay.
  The very next day, The New York Times reported Afghan President Hamid 
Karzai blaming foreigners, including the United States, for the 
corruption that is so rampant in his government. He had the audacity to 
say this at an event marking International Anti-Corruption Day.
  Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the 
earth. Transparency International ranks Afghanistan as the second most 
corrupt government, right behind Somalia and North Korea, which tied 
for first place.
  So I ask my colleagues, why should we shed a single drop more of 
blood, sacrifice the lives of our service men and women, for a corrupt 
government that doesn't even have the decency to take responsibility 
for its own failures.
  Enough is enough. We have spent over $440 billion on military 
operations alone in Afghanistan since 9/11. In 2012 we aim to spend 
another $113 billion. By this time next year, our total spending on the 
war in Afghanistan, just the military operations, will be around $557 
billion. That's over half a trillion dollars.
  And when I say ``spend,'' I really mean borrow, because from day one 
of the Afghanistan war--and the Iraq war, for that matter--we have not 
paid for the military operations in these wars. We have borrowed nearly 
every single penny of that money, put it on the national credit card, 
let it rack up over a quarter of our cumulative deficit, and help 
explode our debt year after year for a decade.
  Sadly, when it comes to paying for this war, too many in Washington 
are silent.
  Mr. Speaker, over 1,800 service men and women have died in 
Afghanistan, 42 of them from Massachusetts. Over 14,000 wounded. 
Husbands, fathers, wives, and mothers. Sons and daughters, brothers and 
sisters. Holes created in families and communities that can never be 
filled, losses that will be felt for a generation or more.
  Each month the tally of dead and wounded gets higher. 2010 was the 
deadliest year for American troops in the history of the Afghanistan 
war. And 2011, a close second.
  We have become numb to the numbers. We don't even hear them any more. 
But these losses resonate around family kitchen tables in the homes of 
the deployed every day and night of the year.
  We all know that the human cost of the war is found not only on the 
battlefields of Afghanistan. It's also found in veterans hospitals and 
counseling clinics around the country. We continue to struggle with 
soaring rates of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress and 
suicides among our soldiers and our veterans. So many leave the service 
or try and carry on military careers wounded in both body and soul.
  Even if we were to leave Afghanistan tomorrow--and I'm so very glad 
to see that our troops are coming home from Iraq--our war debt will 
continue for decades. And for what? For 10 years of support for a 
corrupt government in Afghanistan? Ten years of sacrificing our brave 
uniformed men and women? Ten years of borrowing money we never had? 
This war is no longer about going after al Qaeda--which I voted to do. 
Osama bin Laden is dead. Instead, we're now bogged down in a seemingly 
endless occupation in support of an incompetent and corrupt Karzai 
government. This is not what I voted for.
  So yes, I'm really worried when I pick up the newspaper and read 
Ambassador Crocker saying we may be in Afghanistan for years beyond 
2014. The American people are way ahead of the Congress and the White 
House on this issue. They want this war ended now. But it seems that 
Washington just doesn't get it. But when all is said and done, the 
responsibility for continuing or ending the war is right here in this 
Chamber. We approved this war, we must now take the responsibility to 
end it.
  This is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the conference report 
on the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization bill. The defense bill 
includes many good and important provisions, but it does nothing, 
absolutely nothing to wind down the war in Afghanistan.
  It's way past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. I can't 
authorize any more funding that doesn't explicitly call on the 
President to plan and carry out the accelerated removal of our troops.
  Bring them home, Mr. President. Bring them all home now.

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 10, 2011]

    U.S. Troops Could Stay in Afghanistan Past Deadline, Envoy Says

                           (By Rod Nordland)

       Kabul, Afghanistan--The American ambassador to Afghanistan 
     on Saturday raised the possibility that United States combat 
     troops could stay in the country beyond the 2014 deadline 
     that the White House had set for their withdrawal.
       The ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, speaking at a roundtable 
     event with a small group of journalists, said that if the 
     Afghan government wanted American troops to stay longer, the 
     withdrawal could be slowed. ``They would have to ask for 
     it,'' he said. ``I could certainly see us saying, `Yeah, 
     makes sense.' ''
       He emphasized, however, that no such decision had been 
     made.
       White House officials said that Mr. Crocker's comments were 
     consistent with its previously stated position.
       ``The president never excluded the possibility that there 
     would be some U.S. forces here, but he stressed that security 
     would be under Afghan lead by 2014,'' said the embassy 
     spokeswoman, Eileen O'Connor. ``The president has always 
     spoken of a responsible winding down of the efforts here, so 
     talk of the possibility of some troops still being here post-
     2014 is not a change in policy.''
       But Mr. Crocker's comments were an explicit acknowledgment 
     that the post-2014 forces may include combat troops, not just 
     the trainers and advisers who had been publicly mentioned 
     before.
       His comments came as the administration was engaged in 
     discussions with the Afghan government on arrangements after 
     2014. At a conference in Bonn, Germany, last week, President 
     Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials called for political 
     and military support for at least another decade.
       Referring to the NATO summit meeting in Lisbon last year at 
     which Western leaders agreed to transfer security 
     responsibility to Afghan forces by 2014, Mr. Crocker said: 
     ``There is nothing in the Lisbon declaration on 2014 that 
     precludes an international military presence beyond 2014. 
     That is to be determined by the parties, who could be 
     numerous, not just us, as we get closer to that date.''
       In June, President Obama announced that American troop 
     withdrawals would begin the following month, with 10,000 of 
     the roughly 101,000 American troops then in the country to 
     leave by Dec. 31, and an additional 23,000 to follow by the 
     summer of 2012. ``Our troops will continue coming home at a 
     steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead,'' 
     he said. ``Our mission will change from combat to support. By 
     2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the 
     Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.'' 
     Of the first 10,000, 4,000 have left, according to a senior 
     NATO official. In most of those cases, personnel who had been 
     scheduled to leave were not replaced, the official said.
       ``We are on a timeline, as you know,'' Mr. Crocker said. 
     ``Ten thousand out by the end of the year, that is being 
     met.'' With the additional 23,000 by September 2012, he 
     added, ``that basically recovers the surge''--the 
     reinforcements Mr. Obama ordered two years ago.
       ``Beyond that, there are no decisions,'' he said, adding, 
     ``And as far as I'm aware, there are no formal 
     recommendations yet.''

[[Page H8907]]

       Asked if that meant that the United States would not 
     necessarily withdraw all combat troops by 2014, Mr. Crocker 
     said, ``I don't know what we're going to be doing in 2014.''
       Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security 
     Council, said that ``the president will make decisions on the 
     size and shape of our presence after 2014 at the appropriate 
     time, based on our interests and in consultation with our 
     Afghan and NATO partners.''
       ``We have been clear that any post-2014 presence by the 
     U.S. would be at the invitation of the Afghan government and 
     aimed at ensuring that we are able to target terrorists and 
     support a sovereign Afghan government so that our enemies 
     can't outlast us,'' she added. ``We have also been very clear 
     that we do not seek permanent bases in Afghanistan or a long-
     term military presence that would be a threat to 
     Afghanistan's neighbors.''
       Military leaders have been quietly pushing to keep as many 
     troops in the country as they can during the next two years 
     as a safeguard while responsibility is transferred to Afghan 
     forces.
       On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gen. 
     John R. Allen, the United States and NATO commander in 
     Afghanistan, had been promoting the view that the withdrawals 
     should stop after next year, with the remaining 68,000 
     soldiers to be kept in Afghanistan through 2013, before cuts 
     resume in 2014. The article said he had not formally 
     recommended that course of action, however.
       Mr. Crocker noted that General Allen had made it clear that 
     trainers and advisers would be likely to remain after 2014. 
     Mr. Crocker said that in some cases ``major weapons systems 
     will not reach Afghanistan'' until after 2014, so Afghans 
     will need assistance learning how to operate and maintain 
     them.
       He said he did not expect America's diplomatic presence to 
     be reduced along with the military pullback. The number of 
     civilian American government employees in Afghanistan 
     increased more than threefold from 2009 to 2011, to more than 
     1,130, from 320.
       ``The decisions get made in Washington, but it's my 
     intention that we're going to stay pretty steady,'' he said. 
     ``As the military does draw down, I think our role will even 
     increase in importance.''
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2011]

         Karzai Says Foreigners Are Responsible for Corruption

                          (By Alissa J. Rubin)

       Kabul, Afghanistan.--President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan 
     blamed foreigners on Sunday for the corruption of Afghan 
     officials and demanded that the United States extradite the 
     former chief of the Afghan Central Bank in connection with 
     the collapse of Kabul Bank, the country's largest financial 
     institution.
       The former governor of the Central Bank, Qadir Fitrat, is 
     living in Virginia. He fledAfghanistan, saying he feared for 
     his life after he was involved in making public the massive 
     fraud at Kabul Bank and removing its senior management.
       Neither of the top bank officers nor any of the major 
     shareholders, who include a brother of Mr. Karzai's and a 
     brother of the first vice president, Marshal Fahim, have been 
     prosecuted, although all of them are still in Afghanistan.
       Referring to Mr. Fitrat, Mr. Karzai said, ``The government 
     of the United States should cooperate and hand him over to 
     us.''
       ``Bring Fitrat and hand him over to Afghanistan to make 
     clear who is to blame,'' he said. ``But our hand can't reach 
     to America.''
       Mr. Karzai made the remarks at an event sponsored by the 
     United Nations to mark International Anti-Corruption Day. 
     Afghanistan is one of the world's most corrupt countries, 
     tying for second worst in rankings by Transparency 
     International, which tracks perceptions of global corruption.
       Several Western diplomats and officials working with the 
     Afghan government said they were disappointed by Mr. Karzai's 
     speech, in which he appeared to again shift much of the blame 
     for corruption to foreigners. While foreigners are 
     unquestionably involved in some of the corruption, they 
     shared responsibility with the Afghans and were only 
     peripherally involved in the Kabul Bank debacle.
       Mr. Karzai also asked that foreigners who give aid to the 
     country tell Afghan officials if government officials or 
     their relatives ask for bribes. Foreign governments have 
     helped finance anticorruption efforts, but the Afghans have 
     often squashed high-profile corruption prosecutions of senior 
     officials. That has been a continuing effort by NATO to comb 
     through military contracts with Afghan businesses to detect 
     corruption and terminate contracts in which there has been 
     manifest abuse. That effort has gone on largely behind the 
     scenes, so it is difficult to tell if it has had much 
     success.
       Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador, said he believed 
     that corruption was now being taken more seriously, although 
     progress was slow and none of the main people responsible for 
     the Kabul Bank fraud had been prosecuted. The Afghan 
     government lost more than $850 million in the bank's 
     collapse. While some of that money has been recovered--more 
     than expected, according to several officials--the government 
     will probably have to pay $450 million to $500 million to 
     cover losses.
       ``I am told they have a series of indictments that have 
     been kept in the pending file as they concentrate on asset 
     recovery,'' Mr. Crocker told reporters on Saturday. ``Look, 
     it's hardly a perfect world. And it isn't going to be for 
     quite some time. What I look for is a trajectory: Is the line 
     going up or down? Very cautiously and very incrementally, I 
     see it going up. In other words, corruption is being taken 
     more seriously at higher levels.''
       ``Does that mean we've turned the corner? We'll see,'' he 
     added.
       Mr. Karzai's focus on Mr. Fitrat and his jab at the United 
     States are the latest in a series of similar comments he has 
     made about the fraud at Kabul Bank. In an interview with the 
     German magazine Der Spiegel last week, he also blamed the 
     United States for Kabul Bank's troubles, saying, ``The 
     Americans never told us about this.''
       ``We believed a certain embassy was trying to create 
     financial trouble for us,'' he said. ``We felt the whole bank 
     scam was created by foreign hands.'' Mr. Karzai declined to 
     be specific, but the American Embassy is the only one that 
     has deeply consulted with the Afghan banking system.

                          ____________________