[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 11-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1945
    WE DON'T NEED MORE TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN; WE NEED A NEW STRATEGY

  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, the year 2009 ended 12 days ago, and many 
were glad to see it go. It was a very difficult year for American 
families as they struggled with the recession. It was also a very 
difficult year for our brave troops in Afghanistan. The death toll was 
317. That was twice as many as the previous year, and it made 2009 the 
deadliest year of the war. We'd all like to believe that this year will 
be safer for our troops in Afghanistan, but it doesn't look like it 
will be that way. Our military leaders have already predicted that 
President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops will lead to an 
increase in violence this spring and summer.
  Sadly, America's military families who have already sacrificed so 
very much must brace themselves for more as the attacks on our troops 
continue. Violent extremism is thriving in Afghanistan because of the 
crippled economy, the broken infrastructure, the lack of education and 
other social services, the breakdown in law and order, and the belief 
that the central government isn't doing nearly enough to help their 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no military solution to these problems. That's 
why I'm opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan. We don't need 
new troops. We need a new strategy. We must start using the tools of 
smart security to improve the lives of the Afghan people and give them 
hope for a better future. One of the keys to this new strategy must be 
a civilian surge, a surge of experts and aid workers who can help the 
Afghan people to rebuild their communities and to rebuild their 
country. Everyone seems to agree that this is a good idea. The 
President said it's a good idea. Our diplomats and military leaders in 
Afghanistan have said it's a good idea. The people of our country 
certainly know that it's a good idea.
  However, the last supplemental appropriations bill, which I voted 
against, lacked significant funding for the civilian surge, and 
President Obama only mentioned it once in his address on Afghanistan at 
West Point. The numbers on the ground tell the story, Mr. Speaker. When 
I questioned Ambassador Eikenberry last month at a Foreign Affairs 
Committee hearing, he indicated that there will be 1,000 civilians in 
Afghanistan by the end of this month, but we will have 100,000 troops 
there soon. That's a ratio of 100 to 1. So we aren't getting the 
civilian surge that we were promised. The current strategy, in fact, of 
relying on the military option ignores what will really work in 
Afghanistan: A real commitment to economic development, humanitarian 
aid, and social services, better law enforcement to disrupt terrorist 
networks, and better governance and systems of justice. The Afghan 
people desperately need a better future and a reason to reject violent 
extremism. They need hope for a positive future.
  Mr. Speaker, winning in Afghanistan is about winning the hearts and 
minds of the Afghan people. Smart security is the way to do that.

[[Page 12]]



                          ____________________