[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 22284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      WE NEED AN EXIT PLAN FOR AFGHANISTAN--NOT AN ESCALATION PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, a report written by General McChrystal, 
the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was leaked to 
the press yesterday. In this report, General McChrystal warns that the 
conflict in Afghanistan ``will likely result in failure'' if we don't 
send in more troops.
  The leak was an apparent attempt to put pressure on the White House 
and the Presidency to escalate the conflict. But, to its credit, the 
administration didn't go there and did not cave in.
  President Obama said that he is skeptical that sending in more troops 
will do any good. And he said, ``I'm certainly not somebody who 
believes in indefinite occupations of other countries.''
  Madam Speaker, I'm relieved that we have somebody in the White House 
who will think long and hard before sending America's men and women 
into harm's way. But the President will certainly face a lot more 
pressure in the coming weeks to increase troop levels. I urge him to 
resist the idea for three very good reasons.
  First, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. We tried it for 
over 8 years. Our troops have fought with incredible skill and courage. 
But sending in more troops will only fuel anti-Americanism, and it will 
convince the Afghan people that the United States is an occupying force 
that must be resisted.
  Second, poll after poll shows that the American people are 
overwhelmingly opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the 
majority now believe that the war in Afghanistan is simply not worth 
fighting.
  Third, Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to keep pouring hundreds of 
billions of dollars into this conflict. We need every one of those 
dollars to meet our urgent domestic needs here at home. We need to use 
our resources to dig out of the recession, not dig into a quagmire in 
Afghanistan.
  For all these reasons, the President and his advisers must rethink 
our mission in Afghanistan and look at changing our strategy.
  The Rand Corporation has produced a study of extremist groups that 
should help us develop the right strategy. Rand studied the history of 
648 extremist groups, finding that military force was effective against 
these groups only 7 percent of the time. Two strategies that work 
better were negotiated political settlements and the use of 
intelligence and police agencies to dismantle extremist networks. 
Combined, these two strategies were effective 83--83 percent of the 
time. That's about 12 times better than the military option.
  Rand also applied its analysis to the current situation in 
Afghanistan and concluded that ``policing and intelligence should be 
the backbone of U.S. efforts'' against al Qaeda in that region.
  That's why policing and intelligence are two key components of my 
national security plan, which is described in House Resolution 363, the 
Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century. My plan also emphasizes 
economic development, infrastructure, jobs, education, and better 
governance for Afghanistan.
  Madam Speaker, by refusing to be rushed and sending more troops to 
Afghanistan, President Obama has shown that he is willing to change 
course. And we must change course. The American people want an exit 
strategy for Afghanistan, not an escalation strategy.

                          ____________________