[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 33 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1120-H1123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES KILLING AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, just today we heard reports that two more 
American servicemembers in Afghanistan were gunned down by the very 
security forces they are helping to train. Unfortunately, this is not 
an isolated incident. Last week, two Army officers were gunned down 
inside the Afghan Interior Ministry. Attacks by Afghan soldiers and 
security forces have accounted for nearly 70 deaths since 2007.
  The U.S. military did a report on this phenomenon, referred to as 
``Green on Blue'' attacks, and determined that they are turning into a 
``growing systemic threat'' to our military personnel in the region. 
These are not U.S. deaths from combat with Taliban and other insurgent 
groups, although some

[[Page H1121]]

of the perpetrators likely hold Taliban sympathies. These attacks are 
by the very forces our military is trying to train to take control of 
their own country--a significant component of the Obama 
administration's military draw-down strategy.
  What are American forces to do when they doubt whether they can trust 
those who wear the uniform of an ally we are spending blood and 
treasure supporting? These attacks further complicate U.S. strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress and the Obama administration need to realize 
that these things are not going well in Afghanistan, and it has nothing 
to do with the capabilities of our troops. Not only are Afghan security 
forces gunning down their American advisers, terrorist and insurgent 
groups continue to find sanctuary in the tribal wilderness areas of 
Pakistan.
  In January, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate painted a 
very bleak picture of the war in Afghanistan and the future of U.S. 
operations in the region. It reflects concerns that I've expressed 
numerous times to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, especially the 
importance of understanding Afghan tribal structures and the Pakistani 
military and intelligence services actively cooperating with two of the 
mostly deadly terror networks in the region.
  Last week, The Washington Post reported that U.S. Ambassador to 
Afghanistan Ryan Crocker wrote a cable describing the fragile situation 
in the region. The cable described many of the problems in the region, 
including terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan where militants continue 
training to attack U.S. forces. Ryan Crocker has a tremendous history 
in that region, having been Ambassador to Iraq, and also Ambassador to 
Pakistan.
  Secretary Panetta has stated that U.S. forces are ``working hard with 
Pakistan to improve the level of cooperation'' so that terrorist groups 
no longer find safe haven in the country.
  While I appreciate the hard work being done by our forces in the 
region, I'm afraid that the complexity of the evolving situation may 
necessitate that we take a very close examination of how we're 
operating.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answers to these extremely complicated 
and dangerous challenges; but last year Congress gave the Obama 
administration the ability to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study 
Group, an independent panel of five Democrats and five Republicans who 
love their country more than they love their political party. The 
Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group would put their expertise to work and 
offer constructive recommendations to the administration to achieve our 
mission and to be successful in Afghanistan.
  This panel would be modeled after the Iraq Study Group, which was 
convened during the worst violence in Iraq. The panel was formed only 
after 3 years of fighting in that country. It was called the Baker-
Hamilton Commission. With the Iraq Study Group, it was an amendment 
that I offered, and I think it made a constructive difference. It was 
five Republicans and five Democrats. Secretary Gates served on the 
commission. Secretary Panetta served on the commission, Ed Meese. Fine 
people, distinguished people, people of integrity and good judgment; 
and they came up with some good recommendations. I have urged Secretary 
Panetta repeatedly to embrace this tried and tested model, this time 
for the Nation's longest war. Five Republicans, five Democrats, all 
people who are no longer involved in the political process but have 
understanding and knowledge both from a diplomatic and a military point 
of that region, both with Afghanistan and with Pakistan.
  U.S. forces have been on the ground in Afghanistan for over 10 years 
now, and it is clear that things are not going well. Given the 
challenges I have discussed, I find it difficult to understand why 
Secretary Panetta and President Obama refuse to use the authority it 
has right now to establish the Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. Such a 
group already has the support of Congress. This bill passed the United 
States Congress, and I ask what harm can come from a group of 
independent experts looking at our missions with fresh eyes, fresh eyes 
on the target. Secretary Panetta and the administration gets to select 
the group, the five Republicans and five Democrats, so those who serve 
on this study will be selected by the administration, and particularly 
by Secretary Panetta, who I have great respect for.
  It's hard for me to understand why Secretary Panetta was willing to 
sit on the Iraq Study Group, which was going to evaluate a war that had 
gone on for 3\1/2\ years under a Republican administration, but is not 
willing to do the same thing to have an outside group look at a war 
that has now been going on for over 10 years.
  This would be totally bipartisan. It would be objective. It would be 
fresh eyes on the target. Ryan Crocker before he was appointed 
Ambassador to Afghanistan supported this concept, and many very 
patriotic Americans have, with the idea of how can we be successful in 
Afghanistan and also in Pakistan.
  I do not know what the recommendations of the panel would be. Maybe 
they will examine the current policy and determine that it is the best 
possible way to achieve success; but the fact remains that Congress 
provided the resources and the authority for the Obama administration 
to conduct an independent review, and they are refusing as of this 
moment to take action.
  Again, it was interesting during the Iraq war, Secretary Rumsfeld was 
willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. General Peter Pace, 
who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was willing to have 
the Iraq Study Group go forward. Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of 
State, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. Mr. Steve 
Hadley, the National Security Adviser, was willing to have the Iraq 
Study Group go forward. They picked two outstanding Americans--probably 
could not have had finer people--former Secretary of State Jim Baker 
and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who was co-chairman of the 9/11 
Commission, was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and has done a 
lot of very good things. It was a bipartisan effort.
  Again, we had people like Secretary Gates, and we had Attorney 
General Meese; and they came together with a very constructive 
proposal. And as many Members may remember, the surge was in the Iraq 
Study Group. It was on page 73.
  So why would Secretary Panetta, who was willing to judge activities 
for a war gone on for 3\1/2\ years during the Bush administration, not 
be willing to have 10 objective people that he proposes, not that the 
Congress proposes, not that any partisan group proposes, but that he 
would propose to bring fresh eyes on the target, to look to see how we 
can deal with the issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan and do it in a way 
to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the men and 
women who are serving so honorably and so well our Nation?

                              {time}  1210

  I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that it's a moral issue, too. I believe 
we owe this--we owe this to the men and women who are serving, and we 
also owe it to the families.
  If other Members care, I would ask you to look at the language and 
then also write a letter to Leon Panetta. Leon Panetta is a good man. I 
served with him here in the House. He loves his country, and I think he 
is working very, very hard. The people serving in the military at the 
Pentagon are very committed and very capable people, but like anything 
else, sometimes a fresh approach, or fresh eyes, again, I think would 
be very good for our country and something that we owe to the men and 
women who are serving in the military and to their families.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                    July 19, 2011.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Panetta: I write today concerning the U.S. 
     mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My amendment, which 
     gives the secretary of Defense the authority to establish an 
     Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) Study Group, was included in 
     the House-passed FY 2012 Defense Appropriations bill. I 
     pressed for the amendment because I believe fresh eyes are 
     needed now to examine the situation on the ground and the 
     overall U.S. mission.
       I envision the Af/Pak Study Group being modeled after the 
     Iraq Study Group (ISG). Both you and your predecessor Bob 
     Gates served on the ISG and know better than

[[Page H1122]]

     most the benefits it provided after three years of fighting 
     in Iraq. Now that the U.S. is in its 10th year in 
     Afghanistan, I believe a similar effort is necessary.
       Before he was appointed as ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan 
     Crocker supported creating an Af/Pak Study Group, along with 
     Ambassador Ronald Neumann and Jim Dobbins from the RAND 
     Corporation. American men and women are fighting and dying in 
     Afghanistan. If we are asking them to put their lives on the 
     line daily, I believe we have an obligation to provide an 
     independent evaluation of the U.S. mission. We owe our 
     military forces nothing less.
       I do not have the answers. But as you know, there is a 
     movement building in Congress in favor of pulling troops out 
     of Afghanistan. An amendment offered by Rep. Jim McGovern 
     earlier this year to the National Defense Authorization Act 
     to accelerate U.S. departure from Afghanistan was narrowly 
     defeated 204 215. If six members had changed their vote, the 
     amendment would have passed. I have talked to several members 
     who voted against the McGovern amendment who are seriously 
     concerned about the war in Afghanistan and could change their 
     vote if the situation on the ground does not improve rapidly.
       I also believe it is critical that Afghanistan be examined 
     in tandem with the facts on the ground in Pakistan. It is 
     clear that in order to be successful in Afghanistan, we must 
     have a clear understanding of how Pakistan is influencing 
     U.S. operations. Just look at the recent news from the 
     region. Hamid Karzai's half-brother was murdered and his 
     funeral bombed, Karzai advisor Jan Mohammed Kahn-was 
     murdered, and militants attacked and laid siege to the 
     Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. The enclosed article printed 
     recently in the Washington Post states, ``. . . optimism and 
     energy vanished long ago, gradually replaced by cynicism and 
     fear. The trappings of democracy remained in place . . . but 
     the politics of ethnic dog fights, tribal feuds and personal 
     patronage continued to prevail.''
       The men and women serving in Afghanistan deserve to have 
     fresh eyes look at this region as soon as possible. With 
     House passage of the Af/Pak amendment, I ask that you use 
     your authority as secretary and move quickly to create this 
     study group. I have discussed my amendment with John Hamre at 
     the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and 
     he has offered to coordinate the group with professionals 
     with a wide range of expertise.
       I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to 
     discuss this important initiative and look forward to working 
     with you to ensure we are successful in Afghanistan and 
     Pakistan.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   August 1, 2011.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Panetta: I want to follow up on my previous 
     letter regarding Afghanistan policy and bring to your 
     attention a book I am reading, The Wars in Afghanistan, 
     discussed in the enclosed Washington Post book review. Its 
     author, Ambassador Peter Tomsen, is a veteran of the Foreign 
     Service and has an impressive background in the South Asia 
     region. If you have not read his book, I highly recommend it 
     to you. The Post review concludes: ``This long overdue work . 
     . . is the most authoritative account yet of Afghanistan's 
     wars over the last 30 years and should be essential reading 
     for those wishing to forge a way forward without repeating 
     the mistakes of the past.''
       After three years of the Iraq war, the formation of the 
     Iraq Study Group garnered the support of Secretary Rumsfeld, 
     Secretary Rice, and Joint Chiefs General Pace. Our military 
     men and women have been putting their lives on the line in 
     Afghanistan every day for 10 years, seven years longer than 
     when the decision was made to create the ISG to provide the 
     independent assessment needed for U.S. policy in Iraq. I 
     believe we owe it to our brave soldiers to focus now with 
     fresh eyes on the target in Afghanistan.
       I have spoken with Ambassador Tomsen about a framework for 
     moving forward in Afghanistan, and he would be happy to meet 
     with you and your team to discuss his breadth of experience 
     there. I urge you to take him up on his offer.
       Best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                               September 15, 2011.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense,
     The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Panetta: It was good to be with you at the 
     Pentagon on Sunday to honor the lives lost there 10 years ago 
     in the 9/11 attacks. I want to congratulate you on a moving 
     ceremony that showed reverence to the Pentagon employees and 
     the passengers of American Flight 77 that perished on that 
     awful morning. I appreciated your comments and those of 
     Admiral Mullen. Several of my constituents died at the 
     Pentagon and the first U.S. service member killed in 
     Afghanistan was my constituent. I thank you and all those who 
     have served in public office and in uniform in the 10 years 
     we have waged war against global terrorism.
       As I waited for the program to begin on Sunday, I saw you 
     and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and was struck by a 
     vivid memory from 2005 of the events surrounding the Iraq 
     war. We were three years into the war, the security situation 
     in Iraq was deteriorating, and our soldiers were dying every 
     day. As a member of Congress who voted to send our troops to 
     fight, I believed I had the added responsibility to make sure 
     the administration was receiving the best advice possible on 
     our Iraq strategy.
       So I proposed creating the Iraq Study Group (ISG) made up 
     of experts outside government to bring what I called ``fresh 
     eyes'' on the target. Secretary Rumsfeld, General Pace, 
     Secretary Rice, and NSC Chairman Hadley all came to see the 
     value in the ISG. By your participation, I think it is fair 
     to say you also saw its benefit, and I greatly appreciated 
     your outstanding service on the bipartisan panel. You and the 
     other Democratic members who gave your time during a 
     Republican administration exemplified the true meaning of 
     service to your country.
       We are now into the 10th year of fighting in Afghanistan 
     and the challenges we face there continue. In 2001, I was the 
     first member of Congress, along with Rep. Joe Pitts, to visit 
     Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion, against the wishes of 
     the Defense Department. We saw firsthand the devastation that 
     the Taliban had visited on Kabul as well as the remnants of 
     the U.S. Embassy that was abandoned in 1979. I have also 
     traveled to Pakistan and seen the difficulties that country 
     faces combating the Afghan Taliban and other terror groups. 
     Despite the current conditions, all my experience in this 
     region tells me that success is possible if we formulate the 
     right strategy to deal with both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       As with the ISG, I believe fresh eyes are needed now to 
     examine U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The security 
     situation continues to erode as evidenced by coordinated 
     insurgent attacks on heavily fortified U.S. and NATO 
     compounds just this week. The Taliban still finds safe haven 
     in the tribal wilderness of Pakistan and the ISI actively 
     funds terrorist groups.
       Given these and other concerns on the ground in 
     Afghanistan, I continue to be puzzled why you, the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff and Secretary Clinton are not-supporting the 
     Af/Pak Study Group idea in the same manner that Secretary 
     Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials supported 
     the ISG. Having the experience of serving on the ISG and now 
     serving as secretary of Defense with a Democratic president 
     (who I acknowledge inherited the war in Afghanistan), you are 
     in a unique position to make this group a reality. The 
     authorization and funding for the Af/Pak Study Group in the 
     House-passed Defense Appropriations bill gives you the 
     authority to create this group today.
       I have to tell you that I continue to be disappointed that 
     your staff has yet to contact former Ambassador Peter Tomsen 
     to discuss his book, The Wars of Afghanistan. His book 
     provides insightful information on the tribal structure of 
     both Afghanistan and Pakistan and the political allegiances 
     that underlie all actions in the region. I believe his 
     knowledge and experience in this region would be invaluable 
     in formatting future policy in South Asia. I respectfully ask 
     again: please take advantage of his work and meet with him as 
     soon as possible.
       Leon, I don't have the answers on Afghanistan. Perhaps 
     current U.S. strategy is the best way forward. But we owe it 
     to the men and women in uniform who have served and continue 
     to serve there--some paying the ultimate sacrifice--to know 
     definitively. I continue to believe that fresh eyes from 
     outside government focused on assessing the situation is the 
     prudent action to take. I ask that you take the advice of 
     those who support an Af/Pak Study Group, including Jim 
     Dobbins, General Charles Krulak, Ryan Crocker, who I spoke 
     with prior to his appointment as ambassador to Afghanistan, 
     and other prominent Americans with experience in this region.
       I believe it would be a sign of strength to appoint a study 
     group and let the American people know that the 
     administration is willing to examine all possible policies to 
     achieve a successful outcome in this troubled region.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                 January 17, 2012.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Panetta: As I am sure you are aware, the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 contains language 
     providing your office with $1 million to assemble the 
     Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) Study Group. I request that you 
     do so immediately.
       The Los Angeles Times reported last week (article enclosed) 
     that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 
     paints a very bleak picture of the war in Afghanistan and the 
     future of U.S. operations in that region. It reflects 
     concerns that I have expressed in numerous letters to you 
     over

[[Page H1123]]

     time, especially the importance of understanding Afghan 
     tribal and political structures and the Pakistani military 
     and intelligence services actively cooperating with two of 
     the most deadly terror networks in the region.
       Given this stark assessment from our own intelligence 
     community, the need to create the Af/Pak Study Group is 
     clear. The Af/Pak Study Group's analysis and recommendations 
     could bring needed clarity to current and future U.S. 
     military and diplomatic operations. You supported the Iraq 
     Study Group and lent your considerable expertise to that 
     effort, so I am perplexed as to why you do not similarly 
     support the Af/Pak Study Group.
       Your November 3, 2011, letter to me stated that coalition 
     troops are making progress against the Taliban and other 
     militants and that progress is being made on our relationship 
     with the Pakistani government and military. I have enormous 
     respect for the-men and women serving our country in South 
     Asia and acknowledge that our troops are performing their 
     mission with bravery and resolve, however, the NIE appears to 
     contradict your assessment.
       Also enclosed is an article by the Hudson Institute's Nina 
     Shea that discusses how Hussain Haqqani, the former Pakistani 
     Ambassador to the United States is facing possible charges of 
     treason for his alleged involvement in ``Memogate.'' Shea 
     asserts, ``There is every reason to believe that the real 
     reason Haqqani is being targeted is that he is a prominent 
     moderate Muslim, one of the few remaining in Pakistan's 
     government.'' Shea goes on to point out that Haqqani was 
     personal friends with two men, Punjab governor Salman Taseer 
     and Pakistan's Federal Minister of Minority Affairs Shabbaz 
     Bhatti, whose lives were cut tragically short last year as a 
     result of their outspoken critique of Pakistan's draconian 
     blasphemy laws.
       Increasingly we see a trend in Pakistan of moderating 
     voices being marginalized and altogether silenced. While I 
     appreciate that you are ``working hard with Pakistan to 
     improve the level of cooperation'' so that terrorist and 
     militant groups no longer find safe haven in the country--I 
     am afraid the complexity of the evolving situation in 
     Pakistan necessitates more.
       The NIE's assessment could lead to support for the war in 
     Afghanistan eroding among the American people and I feel the 
     same sentiment will soon permeate the halls of Congress. If 
     the president has simply decided that U.S. involvement will 
     end in 2014 and that no further U.S. strategy is needed, he 
     should clearly state that this is his policy and be 
     forthcoming with the American people. If President Obama has 
     not made a final determination on U.S. strategy going 
     forward, I ask again, what harm can come from a group of 
     independent experts using their experience to offer solutions 
     for long-term success?
       Following 9/11, I have supported U.S. military actions in 
     the War on Terror. I want to see our soldiers, diplomats and 
     Foreign Service personnel return home with their heads held 
     high, knowing they all played a crucial role in establishing 
     stability in South Asia where countries no longer pose a 
     threat to our national security. I firmly believe that you 
     can help ensure this happens by using the money made 
     available to you to create the Af/Pak Study Group. 
     Establishing this panel quickly will show the American people 
     that the Obama Administration is willing to consider all 
     possible options to achieve success in this volatile region.
       I urge you to take these steps immediately before support 
     for our mission in Afghanistan further erodes.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                February 10, 2012.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Panetta: I am sure you are aware of the 
     enclosed article by Army Lt. Col. Daniel Davis that recently 
     appeared in the Armed Forces Journal regarding the status of 
     our mission in Afghanistan and the capabilities of Afghan 
     National Army (ANA) forces. I am deeply troubled by the 
     conclusions reached in Col. Davis' assessment and believe 
     that it further underscores the importance of immediately 
     creating the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group.
       Col. Davis' piece tracks closely with the latest National 
     Intelligence Estimate's assessment of current and future 
     conditions in the region which I referenced in my January 17 
     letter to you (enclosed). These two assessments, coupled with 
     the February 4 United Nations report showing that Afghan 
     civilian casualties are increasing and the 2011 Red Team 
     study by NATO on fratricide by ANA forces on coalition 
     troops, lend credibility to the growing belief that U.S. 
     strategy in South Asia is not going well.
       In the interest of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
     Marines serving--and in many cases dying--in Afghanistan, I 
     implore you to immediately establish the Afghanistan/Pakistan 
     Study Group. As I have referenced in previous letters to you, 
     Congress has provided the funding for this panel and under 
     the law, you can select its members.
       While reasonable people can disagree on specific policy 
     options, I find it difficult to understand why the Obama 
     Administration would not embrace a panel of five Democrats 
     and five Republicans (modeled on the Iraq Study Group on 
     which you and former Secretary Gates served), who love their 
     country more than their party, putting their expertise to 
     work and offering constructive recommendations to achieve our 
     mission.
       We owe it to the men and women serving in uniform--and the 
     families supporting them--to have the best possible long-term 
     strategy for success.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.
       P.S. I know you care deeply about our service members 
     serving overseas and that you and your team are doing what 
     you think is best for our country. But I believe any 
     objective observer would agree we need fresh eyes on the 
     target.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________