[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.
____________________