[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 21982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   THE PRESIDENT MUST REJECT PLANS TO SEND MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every child and every adult is familiar 
with the story of Goldilocks. Remember how it goes:
  After wandering into the three bears' house, Goldilocks saw three 
bowls of porridge. One was too hot, one was too cold, but one was the 
medium temperature, and it was just right. I mention this because The 
New York Times recently reported that Goldilocks is playing a role in 
shaping American defense policy. According to the report, General 
McChrystal is expected to give Secretary of Defense Gates three options 
for troop increases in Afghanistan. The three options are, first, 
15,000 more troops; second, 25,000 more troops; or third, 45,000 more 
troops. Pentagon officials apparently believe that Gates will choose 
the medium option of 25,000 troops. According to the Times, they 
actually call this the ``Goldilocks option.''
  Here's why: Sending 15,000 more troops would be too cold because it 
wouldn't be enough to satisfy the generals; sending 45,000 more troops 
would be too hot because it would cause political problems; so sending 
the medium number of troops, 25,000, is considered ``just right.''
  Of course the problem with this is that Afghanistan is not a 
children's story. It is a real war where real people are getting 
killed, and it is rapidly losing the support of the American people. 
Recent polls show that the American people want to reduce our troop 
strength in Afghanistan, not increase it. The American people have good 
reason to oppose the escalation of the conflict. They know that the 
recent elections in Afghanistan were filled with fraud, and they 
believe the Kabul Government is more interested in corruption than in 
improving the lives of the Afghan people.
  The American people also know that we have already spent nearly $225 
billion in Afghanistan but have little to show for it. Our troops have 
performed brilliantly and courageously, but the insurgency is growing, 
and the war is getting harder to fight every single day. Besides, they 
believe the money that we have poured into Afghanistan is desperately 
needed here at home for health care reform and other vital domestic 
problems. The American people also know that we do not have a clear 
mission in Afghanistan, there is no exit strategy, and they fear that 
we run the risk of being considered an occupying force. Since the 
Afghans have opposed and defeated every single foreign power that has 
ever tried to occupy their nation, it all seems to be a repeat of past 
failures.
  For all of these reasons, we need to debate, and we need to 
reconsider what the U.S. role is in Afghanistan. I am urging the House 
to support my bill, H. Res. 363, the SMART Security Platform for the 
21st century. The SMART Security Platform would change our mission in 
Afghanistan to emphasize economic development, humanitarian aid, 
education, jobs, and better governance. It would also help Afghanistan 
develop its policing and intelligence capacity. Policing and 
intelligence, you see, are far more effective than massive military 
invasions when it comes to tracking down violent extremists in the 
communities where they lurk.
  Mr. Speaker, if the administration sends more troops to Afghanistan, 
the United States will be doubling down on a strategy that has already 
failed. The Afghan people don't want the United States to occupy their 
country, and the American people don't want an occupation, either. I 
urge President Obama to reject any plan to send more troops to 
Afghanistan because, like Goldilocks who should not have eaten any of 
the porridge that did not belong to her, Afghanistan does not belong to 
the United States.

                          ____________________