[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9101-9102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1020
                            AFGHAN STRATEGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, national syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson 
recently wrote a piece titled, ``Afghan Strategy: Let's Go.'' It 
appeared in the June 11 Raleigh News and Observer. I would like to 
share some of Mr. Robinson's thoughts with the House.
  He began his column with this: ``Slender threads of hope are nice but 
do not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour 
American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of Afghanistan.''
  And he closed this column with these words: ``We wanted to kill or 
capture Osama bin Laden, and we did. Even so, say the hawks, we have to 
stay in Afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the 
border in nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in 
Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable?''
  Mr. Speaker, these are not my words, again. These are the words of 
Eugene Robinson who's nationally known and respected, and he is a 
liberal. He's not a conservative. But the point he's making is exactly 
right. How many more young men and women have to give their life for a 
corrupt leader?
  I would like to ask my colleagues on both sides to join Jim McGovern 
of Massachusetts--I am a cosponsor of this bill. It's H.R. 1735, the 
Afghan Exit and Accountability Act. It gives a parameter to the 
President as to how we need to start bringing our troops out of 
Afghanistan before 2014 or 2015.
  I look at this young man's face, Mr. Speaker. His name is Tyler 
Jordan. His father was killed in Iraq. I look at him and he represents 
all the children in America who are crying because their moms and dads 
are coming back dead. Many are coming back without arms and legs. So 
Tyler represents children in America who have their family, loved ones 
over in Afghanistan. It's time to bring them home, Mr. Speaker.
  And then the other poster has the flag-draped coffin--they call it a 
transfer case--coming into Dover Air Force Base. How many more families 
in this country have to look at the flag-draped coffin of their loved 
one?
  Mr. Speaker, that's why I hope both sides will join Mr. McGovern and 
myself in H.R. 1735 because Mr. Gates has already said we will be in 
Afghanistan until 2014 and 2015. That's what Eugene Robinson is saying: 
How many more have to die in the next 3 or 4 years for a corrupt leader 
named Karzai that we're paying $8 billion a month to and we're cutting 
programs in America for children and senior citizens?
  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to make reference to Tyler Jordan and his 
pain. I want to remember the flag-draped coffin and think how many moms 
and dads are having to be at the funeral home receiving the flag-draped 
coffin and, in many cases, cannot even look at their loved ones because 
they were killed in a horrendous way.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people will get behind H.R. 1735 
and call their Members of Congress and ask them to join us in bringing 
our troops home before 2014.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do all the time in my district and 
on the floor of the House, I will ask God to please bless our men and 
women in uniform. I will ask God to please bless the families of our 
men and women in uniform. I will ask God in His loving arms to hold the 
families who have given a child dying for freedom in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. And I will ask God to please bless the House and Senate that we 
will do what is right in the eyes of God for God's people here in 
America. And I will ask God to bless Mr. Obama, the President, that he 
will have the wisdom, the strength, and the courage to do what is right 
for the American people.
  And I will close by asking three times: God please, God please, God 
please continue to bless America.

              [From the News and Observer, Jun. 11, 2011]

                       Afghan Strategy: Let's Go

                          (By Eugene Robinson)

       Washington, DC.--Slender threads of hope are nice but do 
     not constitute a plan. Nor do they justify continuing to pour 
     American lives and resources into the bottomless pit of 
     Afghanistan.
       Ryan Crocker, the veteran diplomat nominated by President 
     Barack Obama to be the next U.S. ambassador in Kabul, gave a 
     realistic assessment of the war in testimony Wednesday before 
     the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Here I am using 
     ``realistic'' as a synonym for ``bleak.''
       Making progress is hard, Crocker said; but not hopeless.
       Not hopeless. What on Earth are we doing? We have more than 
     100,000 troops in Afghanistan risking life and limb at a cost 
     of $10 billion a month, to pursue ill-defined goals whose 
     achievement can be imagined, but just barley?
       The hawks tell us that now, more than ever, we must stay 
     the course--that finally, after Obama nearly tripled U.S. 
     troop levels, we are winning. I want to be fair to this 
     argument, so let me quote Crocker's explanation at length:
       ``What we've seen with the additional forces and the effort 
     to carry the fight into enemy strongholds is, I think, 
     tangible progress in security on the ground in the South and 
     the West. This has to transition--and again, we're seeing a 
     transition of seven provinces an districts to Afghan 
     control--to sustainable Afghan control. So I think you can 
     already see what we're trying to do--in province by province, 
     district by district, establish the conditions where the 
     Afghan government can take over and hold ground.''
       Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam veteran and former 
     secretary of the Navy, pointed out the obvious flaw in this 
     province-by-province strategy. ``International terrorism--and 
     guerrilla warfare in general--is intrinsically mobile,'' he 
     said. ``So securing one particular area . . . doesn't 
     necessarily guarantee that you have reduced the capability of 
     those kinds of forces. They are mobile; they move.''
       It would require far more than 100,000 U.S. troops to 
     securely occupy the entire country.

[[Page 9102]]

     As Webb pointed out, this means we can end up ``playing 
     whack-a-mole'' as the enemy pops back up in areas that have 
     already been pacified.
       If our intention, as Crocker said, is to leave behind 
     ``governance that is good enough to ensure that the country 
     doesn't degenerate back into a safe haven for al-Qaida,'' 
     then there are two possibilities: Either we'll never cross 
     the goal line, or we already have.
       According to Obama's timetable, all U.S. troops are 
     supposed to be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Will the deeply 
     corrupt, frustratingly erratic Afghan government be ``good 
     enough'' three years from now? Will Afghan society have 
     banished the poverty, illiteracy and distrust of central 
     authority that inevitably sap legitimacy from any regime in 
     Kabul? Will the Afghan military, whatever its capabilities, 
     blindly pursue U.S. objectives? Or will the country's 
     civilian and military leaders determine their self-interest 
     and act accordingly?
       The fact is that in 2014 there will be no guarantees. 
     Perhaps we will believe it incrementally less likely that the 
     Taliban could regain power and invite al-Qaida back. But that 
     small increment of security does not justify the blood and 
     treasure that we will expend now and then.
       I take a different view. We should declare victory and 
     leave.
       We wanted to depose the Taliban regime, and we did. We 
     wanted to install a new government that answers to its 
     constituents at the polls, and we did. We wanted to smash al-
     Qaida's infrastructure of training camps and safe havens, and 
     we did. We wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and we 
     did.
       Even so, say the hawks, we have to stay in Afghanistan 
     because of the dangerous instability across the border in 
     nuclear-armed Pakistan. But does anyone believe the war in 
     Afghanistan has made Pakistan more stable? Perhaps it is 
     useful to have a U.S. military presence in the region. This 
     could be accomplished, however, with a lot fewer than 100,000 
     troops--and they wouldn't be scattered across the Afghan 
     countryside, engaged in a dubious attempt at nation-building.
       The threat from Afghanistan is gone. Bring the troops home.

                          ____________________