[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3957-3962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE 21ST CENTURY BATTLEFIELD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of the world, there has 
always been conflict between nations and among people. Wars have been 
fought to conquer land. Wars have been fought to acquire resources. 
Wars have been fought to spread ideas.
  What is constant is that with each succeeding battle, both the tools 
and the techniques of warfare have progressed. From the earliest days 
of using rocks and sticks to the advancement of bows and arrows to 
flintlock and then automatic weapons, to TNT, atomic and nuclear bombs, 
man has continued to find ways, new ways of inflicting greater 
destruction on each other.
  My father served in World War II. My older brother served in Vietnam. 
I, myself, served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Iraqi 
Freedom, and Enduring Freedom, and my nephew continues to serve in the 
United States Army and has already been deployed to Afghanistan twice.
  The only thing we know for sure is that the enemies my nephew has 
faced and will face in the future are altogether different from the 
enemy my father found in Europe and my brother found in Southeast Asia. 
Unlike any conflict this Nation has ever undertaken, from Lexington and 
Concord to Gettysburg and Antietam, from Belleau Wood and the Marne to 
Normandy and Iwo Jima, from the Chosin Reservoir to Khe Sanh, to the 
Persian Gulf, this 21st century battlefield is not defined by columns, 
fronts, uniforms, or borders but, rather, about one ideology against 
another.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about this 21st century 
battlefield, one that is vastly different from any we have faced 
before. If we are not as prepared to fight in this new virtual 
environment as we would be to fight in unfamiliar physical 
surroundings, it will be just as likely to effect our downfall as the 
jungles in Indochina were to the colonial French troops.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, it is clear the United States Congress, the media, and 
Americans are truly focused on the dire economic situation here at 
home, and I share those concerns.
  I also recognize the importance of not turning our backs on the 
principal obligation vested in us as elected leaders to protect and 
defend the United States of America against enemies, foreign and 
domestic.
  The wars that my father and brother fought in and the Cold War we 
were engaged in when we first put on those uniforms 30 years ago, all 
of them were clearly defined. We knew our enemy. We knew his tactics. 
We knew his weapons and the uniform he wore. We even, at times, Mr. 
Speaker, laid down our arms temporarily to observe religious holidays 
like Christmas and Tet. But with the advent of the 21st century 
battlefield, that paradigm no longer exists. If we are going to achieve 
our objectives, we must be ready to adapt to changing circumstances. We 
cannot simply understand our enemy; we must define it.
  In 2012, more than 10 years after the Twin Towers fell in the city of 
which you, Mr. Speaker, represent, there is still a debate in this 
country about whom we're fighting.
  So today, let us set aside political correctness in order to fully 
define the enemy we've been at war with for decades, since years before 
commercial airliners slammed into the Pentagon, crashed in a field in 
Pennsylvania, and took the lives of over 2,000 citizens in New York.
  Let me be perfectly clear: the free world is not engaged in a war on 
terror. Terrorism is a tactic, Mr. Speaker, and no nation or coalition 
of nations can go to war against a tactic.
  For instance, the United States was not engaged in a war against the 
Blitzkrieg or the Kamikaze in 1941 through 1945. Al Qaeda and the 
Taliban are indeed our enemy, but we are not at war with al Qaeda or 
the Taliban. They are simply the regiments and battalions of the 
ideological army to which they belong.
  The United States was not at war with the 12th German Panzer Division 
or the 55th Japanese Infantry Regiment from 1941 to 1945. In fact, 
before the rise of al Qaeda, the terrorist group that had inflicted the 
most damage on the United States was Hezbollah. And let us never forget 
the loss in the Beirut bombing of those 240-some-odd marines. Today, 
Hezbollah has evolved into a highly capable military force, albeit one 
without state or uniform. So capable, in fact, they have armed missiles 
within striking distance of every city in Israel. Yet several American 
Presidential administrations have failed to clearly identify Hezbollah 
as an enemy.
  Until we as a Nation are able to correctly and openly identify our 
enemy, we will continue to put our men and women on the ground in 
harm's way without a clear mission for success.
  On this 21st century battlefield, we are not fighting against a 
single organization, a single leader, or a single nation. We are, Mr. 
Speaker, fighting against a radical Islamic fundamentalism which knows 
no country, recognizes no borders, and wears no uniform. It is 
Islamism, a theocratic political totalitarian ideology, no different 
from Nazism, fascism, and communism, which threatens the free world. 
Our

[[Page 3958]]

enemy does not distinguish between combatants, be them lawful 
combatants, unlawful combatants, or even noncombatants, as required by 
the Geneva Convention. Our enemy does not distinguish between military 
and civilian targets.
  So, Mr. Speaker, how do we understand the complexities of this global 
conflagration in which we are engaged, and how do we make the changes 
necessary to defeat it? With the appropriate strategic level of 
perspective, because we will never lose at the tactical level on the 
ground because the United States has the best soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen the world has ever known. But 
without the correct strategic and operational goals, we'll be on the 
proverbial hamster wheel. No matter how much effort we exert, we will 
not make forward progress.
  So, now that we have defined the enemy, we must develop strategic 
imperatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are three strategic imperatives: to 
engage, to deter, and to strike. We must clearly, then, identify 
specific strategic level objectives, and there are four.
  First, Mr. Speaker, we must deny the enemy sanctuary. The number one 
asset our military has is its strategic mobility. When that is 
curtailed by a focus on nation-building or occupation-style warfare, we 
eliminate our primary advantage and, worse, turn our military forces 
into targets, because this enemy truly indeed has no respect for those 
borders and boundaries. Therefore, we must be willing to take the fight 
directly to him.
  Second, we must interdict the enemy's flow of men, material, and 
resources. We have to cut off the enemy's ability to fund, supply, and 
replenish his ranks. As my colleague just spoke, our own energy 
independence is a vital part of that goal.
  Third, we must, Mr. Speaker, win the information war. Unfortunately, 
the enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the Internet, 
broadcast media, and dissemination of powerful imagery. In addition, I 
fear that there are some in our media who now see themselves as an 
ideological political wing. If we cannot fully utilize information as a 
resource and part of our national power, we will lose this battle, if 
not our country.
  The great example of this occurred during the Tet Offensive, when the 
North Vietnamese used information to their benefit against a superior 
American fighting force. Despite their own troops being badly depleted 
in the attack, our enemies were able to paint the outcome as a 
devastating loss for the United States. A former Vietcong Minister of 
Justice, Truong Nhu Tang, would later write:

       It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda 
     transmuted this military debacle into a brilliant victory, 
     giving us new leverage in our diplomatic efforts, inciting 
     the American antiwar movement, and disheartening the 
     Washington planners.

  Today, the Islamic fundamentalist enemy collectively portrays 
themselves as the victims of imperialism. Just as the Axis and 
Communist powers defined the free world as aggressors in order to cover 
up their crimes and designs for global domination, totalitarian Islam 
seeks to replicate the exact same strategy.
  The now-deceased Osama bin Laden incited violence against Americans 
by invoking just such language when he said:

       U.S. soldiers only fight for capitalists, usury takers, and 
     the merchants of arms and oil, including the gang of crime at 
     the White House. Under these circumstances, there will be no 
     harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests 
     of socialists in the fight against the crusaders.

  Mr. Speaker, fourth, as far as strategic objectives, we must cordon 
off the enemy and reduce his sphere of influence. We have to shrink the 
enemy's territory and not allow any political, cultural, educational, 
and financial infiltration into the United States.
  What happened with Major Malik Nadal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, 
should not have been possible in this country. We must not turn a blind 
eye to a bold enemy who is telling us exactly what he wants to do and 
who is willing to bring the battle to our doorsteps.
  Furthermore, for us to classify this jihadist attack as workplace 
violence defies sanity.
  It is important that we must not hamstring our troops through the 
rules of engagement. Let us trust our men and women who are fighting 
for the preservation of this great constitutional Republic, and that 
includes our domestic law enforcement.
  These should be our goals: deny the enemy sanctuary, cut off his flow 
of resources, use information to our advantage, and reduce his sphere 
of influence.
  We must recognize that Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars but combat 
theaters of operation. It is up to our elected leaders and strategic-
level military officials to identify and agree on the correct goals and 
objectives.
  Beyond identifying the enemy and defining our objectives in kinetic 
battle, we must also understand and recognize the truly nonkinetic 
conflicts of the 21st century battlefield. One need only review the 
collapse of the Soviet Union to understand great nations can be toppled 
economically as well as militarily.
  In fact, one country paid particular close attention to the fall of 
the Soviet Union, and that was China. In fact, China's efforts to 
modernize its economy were taken explicitly from the playbook of Lenin 
during the period of the New Economic Policy.
  Lenin sought to place market mechanisms in a Communist economy to 
preserve the rule of the party and modernize this war's industries. It 
also sought to deceive the West into believing that communism had been 
weakened and was, therefore, a less formidable opponent.

                              {time}  1340

  China, Mr. Speaker, has been mimicking this tactic for decades. It's 
time that we took notice. Currently, the United States is providing a 
great economic advantage to China by allowing them to have an 
incredible trade surplus and hold nearly 30 percent of our debt. We 
must recognize that China is not using that advantage to improve the 
standard of living of its citizens. Instead, it is taking its economic 
edge to the 21st century battlefield. Within 10 years, the world's 
largest blue-water Navy will fly not under a United States but a 
Chinese flag.
  Why is that important?
  Because no matter how technology changes in the future, the Earth's 
surface will still be covered 70 percent by water. All of the great 
civilizations--from the Venetians, to the Romans, to the Portuguese, 
Spanish, Dutch, English, and the Japanese--understood that the power 
and reach of a nation is extended not through a great army but through 
a strong navy. In 1990, the United States possessed 570 naval war 
vessels. Today, we have 285--projected to go even lower. If we cannot 
protect the sea lanes of commerce, we leave ourselves vulnerable, not 
just militarily, but economically to a power in China that continues to 
seek world communism as its ultimate goal, irrefutably so.
  Mr. Speaker, I could spend the entire Special Order talking about 
China, because I believe, in this century, China could become the 
premier dominant nation in the world. And while the relationship 
between China and the United States is based on mutual needs at this 
moment, I am concerned for the day when China realizes this 
relationship is more of a hindrance than a need, and we always need to 
prepare if that day is to come.
  As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, who served during the 
initial battles of that conflict, I am proud to be among the more than 
1 million Americans who served in Iraq. What my fellow comrades in arms 
achieved in that country is nothing short of historic. Together, we 
defeated one of history's most tyrannical dictatorships and replaced it 
with what could be a free and democratic Muslim government. American 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines beat back a radical Islamic 
insurgency and helped create what we hope for--an ally and partner in 
freedom.
  I will never forget those with whom I served and those who served 
after I left that battlefield. I will always remember the sacrifice 
borne by so many

[[Page 3959]]

servicemembers and their families. However, I have to question the 
motives of President Barack Obama in announcing a full withdrawal of 
American forces in October of 2011. Did the President press the 
commanders on the ground before making that decision? What kind of 
message does our sudden withdrawal send to our allies, such as the 
Kurds in the northern part of Iraq? Do they feel abandoned yet again? 
My fear is that political expediency drove that decision, not 
recommendations from the military leadership, not a strategic 
understanding of the 21st century battlefield.
  For over 10 years, our Nation has been on the offensive against 
Islamic totalitarianism, radical Islamic terrorism, and specific 
individuals who want to harm our country and kill our citizens. Ten 
years ago, a band of thugs declared war on the United States, our 
fellow Americans, and our way of life. The last decade in Afghanistan 
has seen peaks and valleys, triumph and tragedy, unspeakable horror and 
unimaginable bravery during our long and difficult march towards 
victory.
  While a decade may seem like a long period of time, we must remember 
that our enemies have been at war with our way of life for nearly a 
generation. From Beirut to the Khobar Towers, from the USS Cole to the 
first bombing of the World Trade Center, from the total destruction of 
the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to September 11, we 
must never forget that we did not choose this fight--the fight chose 
us.
  While we may not have executed this combat operation perfectly--but 
then no war ever has been--we cannot pretend that radical Islam does 
not exist. The killings of Osama bin Laden and other radical terrorist 
leaders are significant victories. However, the fight continues. There 
is evil in this world that must be confronted lest our Nation sees more 
of its citizens maimed and killed in acts of terror.
  I will continue to urge our President and his administration, my 
colleagues on Capitol Hill, and our congressional leadership to 
pressure Pakistan to crack down on terrorists within their borders. A 
particular concern is the Haqqani network, which is responsible for so 
much violence and bloodshed. I urge our leaders on both sides of the 
aisle to finish what was started in this part of the world.
  Ten years after September 11, it remains absolutely vital to our 
national security that we succeed in Afghanistan. And how do we define 
``success''? We cannot grant the enemy another opportunity to use that 
country as a home base for planning strikes against our Nation. Deny 
the enemy sanctuary. Unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan, as we 
have done in Iraq, without considering the ground situation or the 
advice of top military advisers, would be absolutely reckless. Allowing 
Afghanistan to revert to its previous condition under Taliban control 
overturns the progress made so dearly by our forces, and it creates new 
threats to all Americans and this world.
  Let me be clear. If we exit without delivering a crushing blow to the 
Taliban and other extremists therein, they will bring the fight to us. 
And while I believe the men and women serving in Afghanistan are 
performing bravely, above and beyond, it is vital that they are given 
all the tools necessary to succeed. We must ensure that they have the 
proper equipment, the proper weapons systems, a clearly defined 
mission, but, most importantly, flexible rules of engagement that do 
not needlessly put their lives at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, recently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in the 
United States, delivering remarks that reinforce that the State of 
Israel is a bright light in a dark ocean of tyranny and oppression. 
Israel must be allowed to defend itself from external and internal 
aggression. The Israeli people must be allowed to continue to build 
within their own borders, and Jerusalem must be recognized, 
irrefutably, as the Nation's only capital. Furthermore, the United 
States must stand by Israel's side in the face of a United Nations 
which clearly views the State of Israel through a lens tinged with 
anti-Semitic hatred, which, unfortunately, we just saw played out in 
France.
  Anything less than full support for Israel and its citizens at the 
United Nations by the United States Government is simply unacceptable. 
I am concerned that Israel, America's strongest and most loyal ally in 
the Middle East, has become more isolated and vilified since Barack 
Obama became President than ever before in its existence, and I believe 
the United States Congress has a solemn duty to ensure that the 
homeland of the Jewish people remains as such.
  The United States and Israel share the common bonds of freedom, 
liberty, and democracy, and the right to worship in the name of any 
religion as you see fit. We share a common enemy, though, in radical 
Islam, and we have both seen our citizens murdered by these terrorist 
thugs. We are, indeed, each other's greatest ally, for without the 
United States Israel would not exist, and without Israel the United 
States would soon fall.
  Today, the bonds between us must be stronger than ever because those 
bonds are threatened as never before. Israel, Mr. Speaker, is a small 
country surrounded by enemies. The United States, however, is a large 
country being infiltrated by the same enemies. Like us, the Israelis 
seek only to be one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. 
And as the Bible makes clear in Leviticus, chapter 25, verse 10, our 
purpose is ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the 
inhabitants thereof.''
  The bottom line is this: our Judeo-Christian faith heritage calls us 
to duty to stand beside the modern-day State of Israel. Therefore, Mr. 
Speaker, if we discuss Israel, we must discuss the Palestinian 
Authority. It is quite simple. No entity that aligns itself with a 
group that calls for the complete and total destruction of another 
country should ever be granted statehood.
  I will never support funding for the Palestinian Authority or the 
recognition of a Palestinian state as long as they are reconciled and 
connected with Hamas. Further, I have cosponsored House Resolution 394, 
to support Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria, if the 
Palestinian Authority continues to press for the unilateral recognition 
of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.
  A United Nations-recognized Palestinian state could place Israelis 
under the sovereignty of a group that actively seeks their destruction. 
This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and in the absence of a negotiated 
peace agreement, Israel has the right to protect its citizens living in 
Judea and Samaria by annexing those territories.

                              {time}  1350

  There cannot be peace without a growing peace party. Now more than 
ever is a time to stand with our ally Israel. And thanks in large part 
to the so-called Arab Spring of democratic revolutionaries, Israel is 
beleaguered and surrounded by hostility on all sides. The Israeli 
Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, was almost seized. And Turkey, once a 
prominent ally, has even shown intimations of threatening Israel with 
war. All the while, Hamas terrorists in Gaza fire rockets into Israeli 
cities on a pretty much daily basis.
  There is a realistic chance that many European countries will 
recognize a Palestinian state. Russia is already offering enthusiastic 
support for a declaration of statehood. And last year, President Obama 
expressed his hope for such an outcome. The Palestinians are now using 
that support as part of their media campaign.
  Even the Democrat Party is opposing Congresswoman Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen's commonsense legislation, House Resolution 2829. This bill 
seeks more transparency and accountability within the United Nations, 
an organization that allows countries like China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, 
and others to control the Human Rights Council.
  The bill also requires steps to be taken to dismantle terrorist 
infrastructures and arrest terrorists, control Palestinian security 
organizations, and end the incitement of violence and hatred in the 
Palestinian media, educational institutions, and mosques.

[[Page 3960]]

And most importantly, it requires the United Nations to recognize 
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
  I am pleased to support this legislation and commend my Florida 
colleague, the chairwoman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 
introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: there is no greater threat to Israel and 
the United States today than the development of nuclear weapons by 
Iran. President Obama has tried to take the diplomatic route when 
negotiating with Iran, but that is an effort that has indisputably 
failed. Iran has twice sent their warships through the Suez Canal 
within the last year in a blatant message to Israel. And recently, an 
Iranian defense official threatened to send warships to the east coast 
of the United States of America.
  I believe Iran poses a genuine threat to democracies around the 
world. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spouts hatred against 
freedom of speech and religion everywhere while opposing his own people 
at home. Further, he denies the Holocaust ever happened and has stated 
that anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic 
nation's fury.
  Iran continues to push for nuclear weapons and has the capability to 
enrich uranium. It remains a state sponsor of terrorism and has aided 
internationally recognized terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. 
Hezbollah, along with organizations like Hamas and al Qaeda, is 
committed to seeing the destruction of the democratic freedoms that we 
treasure, along with the State of Israel in its entirety.
  As a Member of the United States House of Representatives, one of my 
objectives is to protect the safety and security of Israel. A stable 
Israel is important to a stable United States, and Iran is a constant 
threat to that stability. We must stop lying to ourselves about Iran, 
for we are barreling toward a point at which we won't be able to 
prevent that nation from acquiring nuclear weapons without a massive 
military strike. It must not come to that. Iran is merely months away 
from producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a 15-kiloton bomb, 
a development which will put American naval vessels and the Strait of 
Hormuz at risk.
  As you know, I have spent a lot of my adult life in uniform, some of 
it on that field of battle in Iraq. Those of us who fought in Operation 
Iraqi Freedom knew that our enemies received considerable assistance 
from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many of the terrorist thugs who 
targeted American troops in that combat operation, just as many of 
those who target our troops in Afghanistan today, received guidance, 
training, weapons, money, and an untold number of explosives that have 
killed or terribly maimed so many of our Nation's finest, our comrades. 
We knew it without a doubt. We knew it because the components of those 
bombs bore irrefutable proof of Iranian manufacture. Yet to this day, 
most Americans are unaware of the support the Iraqi insurgency received 
from the Iranians.
  Iran declared war on the United States of America nearly 33 years ago 
and has waged that war ever since. The Iranian war against America is 
not limited to our troops. Indeed, as we have recently learned from the 
Attorney General and the director of the FBI, the Iranians are prepared 
to kill American civilians right here in Washington if they happen to 
be in the same place at the same time as an intended target of 
assassination.
  Our dealings with Iran are not a partisan political matter. A failure 
to respond to their murderous attacks is a national failure, not a 
failure of one party or another or one leader or set of leaders. This 
is a war, whether we decide to fight it or not.
  They are waging war against us; yet our public discourse rarely, if 
ever, bothers to mention that fact. Every so often, someone will remind 
us that Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism; but even that 
does not encapsulate the truth of the matter. They are killing us every 
single day.
  If you want to see what the consequences of an Iranian victory would 
look like, just observe what life is like for the citizens of Iran. 
Anyone who voices opposition to the government or complains about the 
oppressive treatment of the Nation's women is arrested, tortured, and 
often killed. Independent newspapers have long since been silenced. 
Access to the Internet is blocked or filtered with the same technology 
used in the People's Republic of China.
  The Washington Post editorialist writing about the Iranians' feverish 
efforts to construct atomic weapons put it very bluntly when they 
wrote:

       By now, it should be obvious that only regime change will 
     stop the Iranian nuclear program, and only regime change will 
     stop the Iranian war against America. Only regime change will 
     bring an end to the mullahs' global dream.

  The Washington Post thinks that sanctions can help, provided they are 
serious sanctions that strike at the heart of Iran's financial system. 
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem supporting such an effort, but I doubt 
that that will be enough because sanctions are only effective when a 
regime cares for its people.
  Iran is a theocracy. An acquisition of a nuclear weapon will enable 
them to achieve their goal, the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.
  We have another, even more powerful, weapon to aim at the Islamic 
dictatorship of Iran: the Iranian people. And it's time to use it. 
There can be no doubt that the people of Iran are yearning for new 
leaders; 2\1/2\ years ago, millions of them took to the streets to 
protest against election fraud and to call for an end to the Islamic 
dictatorship. There can be little doubt that, unlike so many of the 
uprisings in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of the 
Iranians do not want radical jihadist overlords. They want a separation 
of mosque and state, with the mullahs in the mosque, not running the 
state.
  Of all the opposition movements in the Muslim Middle East, the 
Iranian one is the closest to us, the only one that surely wants to be 
part of the Western world. So why, then, Mr. Speaker, has the Iranian 
opposition movement not been explicitly endorsed by our government? Why 
do the President and the Secretary of State continue to talk about 
reaching an agreement with the Tehran regime? Why does the President 
not say that Ahmadinejad and Khomeini must go? If Qadhafi had to go and 
Mubarak had to go and Assad must go, why not the Iranian terror 
masters?
  Since the President and the Secretary of State are unwilling to spell 
it out, I will offer my assistance. Ahmadinejad and Khomeini have to 
go, along with their evil henchmen. We need clear language from our 
leaders that states, Down with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, Mr. 
Speaker, represents a clear and present evil in our world. We, hereby, 
call for a free Iran, and we are willing to support an effort by the 
Iranian people to liberate their country.
  President Ronald Reagan recognized the threat of inaction, and he 
laid out a road map on how to confront evil in our world three decades 
ago. First, tell the truth. Tell it often. Tell it everywhere. The 
truth is that Iran is in the clutches of evil people who kill Iranians 
and support the killing of Israelis and Americans every day and who 
will kill even more, if and when they get nuclear atomic bombs and 
warheads.

                              {time}  1400

  The truth is that we have tried to reach some sort of reasonable 
agreement with them for more than 30 years. The truth is they don't 
want it. They want to destroy us. And that's what they mean when they 
chant, ``Death to America.''
  Second, our leaders and representatives must call for the release of 
political prisoners being persecuted in that country, to include the 
Iranian Christian minister being threatened with execution. When our 
diplomats attend international conferences, they should arrive with 
lists of victims in Iran, and they should read those lists. It's harder 
for totalitarian regimes to kill people with names than to slaughter 
faceless victims.
  Third, we should broadcast the facts to the Iranian people. They need 
to

[[Page 3961]]

know that we stand with them. They need to know what's going on inside 
their country. This is based on our experience during the Cold War when 
it turned out people inside the Soviet Union knew more about events in 
London and Paris and Washington than inside their own borders. That's 
why Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were such potent instruments of 
peace. Our broadcasts are often jammed by the Iranian regime. We must 
defeat their censorship.
  Finally, we have to track down the killers of Americans and bring 
them to justice. The world must know anyone that takes an American life 
will be targeted and taken out in any country on the planet. Those who 
kill our citizens will not find safe haven in Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, a majority of the America media did not feel it was 
important to report that Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited Cuba, 
Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua this past January. President 
Ahmadinejad threatened almost 200 years of precedent established by the 
Monroe Doctrine when he declared that ``from now on, Latin America will 
no longer be in the backyard of the United States.''
  President Ahmadinejad is assisting Hugo Chavez with missile sites and 
has joked with that South American dictator about pointing a warhead at 
the United States. And, Mr. Speaker, there are Hezbollah camps in South 
America. Chavez himself has offered to send troops to fight with the 
Taliban and has reportedly funded al Qaeda. President Ahmadinejad has 
recruited the Mexican drug cartels for an attempted assassination of a 
Saudi ambassador in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, President Ahmadinejad's sphere of influence is not 
limited to the Middle East. He is entering our hemisphere and showing 
the influence that he has in this region. And that goes back to our 
fourth strategic objective.
  President Obama seems to be uninterested in the principles of the 
Monroe Doctrine because, after all, he did take the wrong side in 
Honduras, and he has laughed it up with Hugo Chavez.
  Mr. Speaker, the Syrian government, meanwhile, is continuing its 
vicious crackdown on innocent Syrian civilians seeking only freedom and 
democracy. According to available figures, almost 10,000 Syrians have 
lost their lives and thousands more have been injured. Many more have 
been forced to flee. The International Atomic Energy Agency also 
recently concluded that the secret Syrian facility destroyed by Israel 
in September of 2007 was ``very likely a nuclear reactor'' based on a 
North Korean model capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.
  The Syrian government has become a conduit in Iran's arming of 
Hezbollah Shiite forces in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. They have 
provided a safe docking station for Iranian warships, and they possess 
an arsenal of chemical weapons and missiles that I fear could end up in 
the hands of terrorists with which they are associated.
  The threat posed by the Assad regime to the United States, to our 
allies, and the Syrian people is stark and growing. The time to 
increase pressure on that regime is now. That is why I joined other 
Members of Congress in sending a letter to President Obama requesting 
that he implement additional sanctions on Syria. The people of that 
country deserve a government that represents their aspirations and 
respects their basic human rights. It is clear that Bashar al-Assad is 
not willing to implement genuine reforms and that he lacks the 
legitimacy to lead the Syrian people.
  The United States and all responsible nations must hold the regime 
accountable and the brutality must end. Additional sanctions would show 
the Syrian people that we stand with them in their struggle for 
democratic freedoms while also making it clear to the Syrian regime 
that it will pay an increasingly high cost for its gross violations of 
human rights and dignity, which is why, Mr. Speaker, UNESCO should 
expel Syria and strongly condemn them, and not repeatedly attack 
Israel. But, however, we must realize that there's an interesting turn 
in Syria with the Iranian and Russian presence evolving.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago the American people watched a 
transition in Egypt, with this administration claiming we were 
witnessing a new dawn of democracy. Today, instead we are witnessing 
the nightmare of one of the greatest threats to the stability in the 
Middle East, a new Egyptian government under the Muslim Brotherhood. 
The Egyptian Parliament is now controlled by a majority of radical 
Islamists, and the Muslim Brotherhood is turning Egypt into a radical 
Islamic state. The Muslim Brotherhood also maintains active ties to 
Hamas, a terrorist organization that openly calls for the destruction 
of Israel.
  Of course, America should stand with the Egyptian people. However, if 
the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood are left unchecked in 
that country, the security of the citizens of Israel, Egypt, and the 
United States all will be in jeopardy.
  On July 19, 2011, I wrote a letter to the House Committee on Armed 
Services Chairman Buck McKeon on the troubling revelation of a possible 
U.S. military sale to the government of Egypt. It stated in my letter:

       It has come to my attention that the Defense Security 
     Cooperative Agency notified Congress on July 1, 2011, of a 
     possible foreign military sale to the government of Egypt for 
     125 M1A1 Abrams tank kits for coproduction and associated 
     weapons, equipment, and parts, training, and logistical 
     support.

  America must continue to stand with the Egyptian people and encourage 
them to build their own democracy with new political parties and 
freedoms. However, we must exercise caution with regard to military 
sales and support to the Egyptian government until a government is 
formed absent of the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that 
would maintain an active peace with Israel.
  Speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
quote to you directly from a former Supreme Guide of the International 
Muslim Brotherhood. In December of 2005, Mohammed Akef said:

       The Brotherhood is a global movement whose members 
     cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the 
     same religious world view--the spread of Islam until it rules 
     the world.

  Three years ago, a court found a Muslim charity right here in the 
United States guilty of funneling millions of dollars to the terrorist 
group Hamas. That was the Holy Land Foundation trial. The Council of 
Islamic Relations, CAIR, was named as an unindicted coconspirator. That 
case included testimony that Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim 
Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations to spread 
the militant Islamist message right here in the United States. In its 
own ``Explanatory Memorandum'' for North America, the Muslim 
Brotherhood stated that its strategic goal is to establish an Islamic 
center in every city in order to ``supply our battalions.''
  Through its various front organizations in the United States, the 
Muslim Brotherhood is succeeding in cultural ``whitewashing'' to 
eliminate all references to Islamist terrorism in our public discourse. 
After the 9/11 Commission identified ``Islamic terrorism'' as a threat 
in this country, the Muslim Public Affairs Council recommended the 
United States Government find other terminology. As a result, the FBI 
Counterterrorism Lexicon and the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy 
included not a single reference to Islam, Muslim, the Muslim 
Brotherhood, Hamas, or Hezbollah.
  Furthermore, after Major Nidal Hasan's attack on Fort Hood, the 
Department of Defense Report used the terms ``violent extremism'' and 
``Islam'' only once in a footnote. Again, that incident was officially 
classified as workplace violence.
  Mr. Speaker, we must also be concerned about North Korea. I was 
stationed in North Korea in 1995 along the demilitarized zone. I stood 
on the 38th parallel and looked through the barbed wire and landmines. 
And there, Mr. Speaker, you can see a repressed Nation. I saw for 
myself what a ticking timebomb that country can be. Sooner or later, 
North Korea will either implode or it will explode. The situation in 
North Korea most closely resembles a street gang, where the leader of 
the

[[Page 3962]]

gang is killed and a young guy must step up.

                              {time}  1410

  In that instance, it is critical for the newly appointed ``top dog'' 
to establish his credibility by proving himself. And today, North Korea 
is ruled by a 28-year-old appointed four-star general.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it took me 22 years to become a lieutenant colonel. 
You can begin to understand how dangerous a situation is brewing just 
west of the Sea of Japan. The tactics do not change, and the game is 
getting tired. Anytime North Korea finds itself in need of money, it 
saber rattles with the threat of a secret nuclear arms program. It has 
fired artillery onto the South Korea island and sunk five South Korean 
Naval vessels.
  Again and again, the international community responds with misguided 
attempts to ``buy'' the country off. Threaten to go nuclear and get 
funding in exchange? I call that international extortion. The DPRK 
newspaper, Nodong Sinmun, and other mouthpieces for the Workers' Party 
of Korea sensed this policy of weakness and referred to the 
disbursement of food and aid as ``tribute.'' If there's one thing we've 
learned, it's that the North Koreans cannot be trusted to voluntarily 
disarm. They are playing our country and the entire Western world for 
fools. Sooner or later, we'll need to step up and stand up to this 
simmering menace just a few hundred miles from Japan.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if we miss this opportunity to recognize 
the 21st century battlefield--and understand, we did not talk about 
Africa, we did not talk about Somalia, and we did not talk about our 
own border security. I thank my colleague from Indiana for speaking 
about energy independence. But if we miss this opportunity for 
understanding what this battlefield truly is, to understand the threats 
and to lay out a strategic vigil for victory, we will lose the 
opportunity to ensure that our children and grandchildren of America 
will have a secure future.
  As a country, we must roll up our sleeves and devise a roadmap for 
security. We must be mindful of the wise words penned by Sun Tzu in the 
book ``The Art of War'' more than 25 centuries ago:

       To know your enemy and to know yourself and to know your 
     environment, in countless battles, you will always be 
     victorious.

  If we do not understand this simple maxim, we face dark days ahead 
indeed. And that shadow could not only fall on this country, but on the 
entire world. Because no matter what our detractors may think, we are 
that beacon, we are that lighthouse. We are, as President Ronald Reagan 
said, ``the shining city that sits upon a hill.''
  For the sake of our Nation and of all nations that seek freedom for 
their citizens, we must be prepared to fight on this 21st century 
battlefield, and we can settle for no less than victory upon it.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who have served in battle are the last to 
desire it. But as John Stuart Mill once wrote:

       War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The 
     decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling 
     which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

  Policymakers and those of us here in Washington, D.C., should heed 
the wise words of George Santayana:

       He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

  I will always stand by the men and women of the Armed Forces, and I 
am proud to represent them as a combat veteran in the United States 
Congress. I will always continue to protect our Nation, as I once did 
on the battlefield, and as I am now honored to do in this, the people's 
House, steadfast and loyal.
  And I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________