[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 61 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H2140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMART SECURITY: A STRATEGY THAT INVESTS IN AFGHANISTAN AND ITS PEOPLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the United States Government
and Afghanistan reached a strategic agreement to define the terms of
the relationship between our two countries in the near-term future.
First of all, this agreement affirms that our combat troops will not
leave Afghanistan until 2014, which is far too slow a timetable. Don't
we have enough evidence right here after 10-plus years that we're not
making America safer with this war, we're not minimizing the terrorist
threat, and we're not bringing stability and security to Afghanistan?
How much more will Americans be asked to sacrifice? How many more
tens of billions in taxpayer dollars will be wasted when we have so
many needs right here at home? How many more Americans have to come
home in a casket? How many more will take their own lives because the
mental health distress of serving in a combat zone becomes too much?
How many more have to spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, or
without a limb or limbs, because of injuries suffered in an immoral and
unnecessary war?
{time} 1030
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there is not a minute to waste. Now is the
moment to end this war and bring our troops home.
The meeting this weekend does, however, show the importance of a plan
going forward, a plan that will define the terms of our engagement with
Afghanistan after the war is over.
I've always said that ending the military occupation does not mean
abandoning Afghanistan. The question is, what form will our partnership
take? And on that question, the agreement signed this weekend provides
very little guidance.
According to The Washington Post, in fact, and I'll quote them, they
say: ``The specifics of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan have yet to
be formally outlined.''
Then The Post adds that ``the document provides only a vaguely worded
reassurance, leaving many to guess at what the U.S. commitment means in
practice.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, we need more than a guess. We need a clear
strategy for investing in Afghanistan and it's people. And while a lot
of the talk has been about continuing to shore up Afghan security
forces, we need a much more comprehensive approach.
In short, we need to implement SMART Security, the strategy that I've
spoken of from this spot hundreds of times since 2004. SMART Security
would replace our military surge with a civilian surge. It would put
humanitarian aid in front and center. It would emphasize development
and diplomacy instead of invasion and occupation.
It would mean, in place of troops and weapons, we send experts with
tools and resources to rebuild Afghan infrastructure, hospitals, and
schools. It would mean investing in programs to improve maternal health
and child mortality. It would mean a focus on democracy promotion and
rebuilding civil society in Afghanistan. It would also mean shifting
the emphasis to peace-building, conflict prevention, and human rights
education.
This approach would save lives. It would promote peace. It is a
superior counterterrorism and national security strategy. It will keep
the American people safe. It will advance our values in a way that a
decade of war clearly has not.
We can't wait until 2014, Mr. Speaker. We need a SMART Security
approach in Afghanistan, and we need it now. And we need to start by
bringing our troops home.
____________________