[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15953-15954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP SAYS ``ABANDON THE CURRENT 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. Madam Speaker, yesterday Speaker Pelosi and the Congress 
recognized the anniversary of 9/11 with a moving remembrance ceremony 
on the steps outside the Capitol. It's critical that we never forget 
the cruelty of those attacks and the tragedy of so many innocent lives.
  But just as importantly, we must use this occasion to examine the war 
that we launched in response to 9/11. Nine years later, have we 
achieved our original objectives? Is the continued military occupation 
advancing or undermining our national security interests?
  You'll recall that the original purpose was to clear al Qaeda out of 
Afghanistan. That's been accomplished. There are barely any al Qaeda 
operatives left in the country, and there is little hope that they 
could gain a foothold there in the future. But our continued military 
footprint is not helping us realize any worthy goal.
  In addition to putting our troops' lives in danger, it is fueling the 
rise and aiding the recruitment of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. 
And on a global level, Madam Speaker, it is stoking the extremism of al 
Qaeda and other anti-American jihadists.
  But it's just not me saying that. The Afghanistan Study Group 
comprised of centrist experts and academics just issued a report 
concluding that, and I quote them as saying, ``It is time to abandon 
the current strategy that is not working. The continuation of an 
ambitious U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan,'' the group adds, 
``will likely work against U.S. interests.''
  Madam Speaker, the report notes that the war costs more annually than 
does the new health care reform bill. And yet curiously, very few of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are railing about the excessive 
spending on Afghanistan. It appears that in their eyes, a failed war is 
worth the investment, but health security for millions of Americans is 
wasteful.
  The Afghanistan Study Group offered some prescriptions and 
alternatives, including political reconciliation; an emphasis on 
regional diplomacy; and investments in Afghanistan's economic 
development--all of which are elements of the SMART security plan that 
I've been promoting for years.
  But instead of heeding this advice, we're pressing forward stubbornly 
with

[[Page 15954]]

failed policy. And the more it fails, the more resources we devote to 
it. As Robert Dreyfuss writes in The Nation, the prevailing wisdom (if 
you can call it that) seems to be . . . if sending 30,000 troops to the 
wrong place isn't getting results, sending 30,000 more to that same 
wrong place might help, and then when that doesn't work, why, send 
another 30,000 troops.''

                              {time}  1450

  Madam Speaker, conditions in Afghanistan have gotten so bad that 
humanitarian groups can't move freely to deliver the aid that is so 
badly needed. The gruesome murders of medical aid workers last month 
underscored the deteriorating security situation. The New York Times 
cites the Afghan NGO Safety Office as saying there were more than twice 
the number of insurgent attacks this August than August of 2009.
  I don't agree with everything the Afghanistan Study Group has to say. 
In fact, by calling for a gradual military drawdown, I believe they are 
just not being bold enough. But Madam Speaker, this disastrous war has 
gone on long enough. It's done enough damage. It's time now to bring 
our troops home.

                          ____________________