[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Page 24694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A WAR OF NECESSITY

  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, the White House is figuring how they 
should treat Afghanistan, what to do about Afghanistan. As they review 
the situation, they must be asking themselves a lot of questions: 
Should our strategy be counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? Should we 
send in 40,000 more troops, or 20,000 more troops, or should we send in 
any more at all? And is the Taliban really a threat to our national 
security?
  Meanwhile, the American people are asking the most important question 
of all: Is the war a war of necessity? And most Americans are coming to 
the conclusion that it is not. And I agree with them.
  Our military presence in Afghanistan is not necessary because al 
Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11, simply isn't in Afghanistan anymore. 
In fact, it's estimated that only about 100 al Qaeda fighters remain in 
the country. Our military presence isn't necessary because it will lead 
us into another foreign quagmire. Escalating the war will require 
massive numbers of troops. They will be fighting an endless war with 
many casualties, no exit strategy at this point, and the American 
people will not put up with that.
  This war is not necessary because it will cost hundreds of billions 
of dollars. That's the money we need to put the American people back to 
work, Madam Speaker, and to get our economy back on track. And finally, 
this war is not necessary because we have better alternatives.
  First and foremost, these alternatives include smart security. 
Smoking out and stopping the violent extremists in Afghanistan requires 
the effective surgical tool of smart security, not the blunt instrument 
of massive military occupancy. Smart security calls for strengthening 
our intelligence and surveillance capabilities. That's absolutely 
essential because the best way to stop the extremists in Afghanistan is 
to penetrate and disrupt their networks.
  Smart security calls for improvements in civilian policing. A well-
trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool 
because it's right there in the communities where the extremists are. 
Smart security calls for a regional diplomatic surge. Afghanistan's 
neighbors have an interest in stabilizing the country just as we do. 
Those nations include Russia, China and Iran. They need to be engaged.
  Smart security also recognizes that al Qaeda and other extremist 
groups have the ability to shift gears and set up shop in other places 
around the world, probably in the poorest places they can find.
  That's why smart security supports investments in the development of 
impoverished nations, to give people the hope and the opportunity they 
need to reject violence and hatred in the first place. And because we 
need to keep the extremists away from weapons of mass destruction, 
smart security calls for vigorous inspection regimes and a renewed 
commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.
  In this session of Congress, Madam Speaker, I have introduced House 
Resolution 363, the ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century.'' 
It is the blueprint we need to defeat extremism in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere in the world. Madam Speaker, the strategy I have described is 
tough. It is pragmatic. It will protect the lives of our brave troops, 
and it will keep our Nation safe.
  As the administration conducts its review of the situation in 
Afghanistan, I urge them to choose this strategy because it is the 
winning strategy.

                          ____________________