[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5636]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 SMART SECURITY: A STRATEGY THAT INVESTS IN AFGHANISTAN AND ITS PEOPLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the United States Government 
and Afghanistan reached a strategic agreement to define the terms of 
the relationship between our two countries in the near-term future.
  First of all, this agreement affirms that our combat troops will not 
leave Afghanistan until 2014, which is far too slow a timetable. Don't 
we have enough evidence right here after 10-plus years that we're not 
making America safer with this war, we're not minimizing the terrorist 
threat, and we're not bringing stability and security to Afghanistan?
  How much more will Americans be asked to sacrifice? How many more 
tens of billions in taxpayer dollars will be wasted when we have so 
many needs right here at home? How many more Americans have to come 
home in a casket? How many more will take their own lives because the 
mental health distress of serving in a combat zone becomes too much? 
How many more have to spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, or 
without a limb or limbs, because of injuries suffered in an immoral and 
unnecessary war?

                              {time}  1030

  Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there is not a minute to waste. Now is the 
moment to end this war and bring our troops home.
  The meeting this weekend does, however, show the importance of a plan 
going forward, a plan that will define the terms of our engagement with 
Afghanistan after the war is over.
  I've always said that ending the military occupation does not mean 
abandoning Afghanistan. The question is, what form will our partnership 
take? And on that question, the agreement signed this weekend provides 
very little guidance.
  According to The Washington Post, in fact, and I'll quote them, they 
say: ``The specifics of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan have yet to 
be formally outlined.''
  Then The Post adds that ``the document provides only a vaguely worded 
reassurance, leaving many to guess at what the U.S. commitment means in 
practice.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we need more than a guess. We need a clear 
strategy for investing in Afghanistan and it's people. And while a lot 
of the talk has been about continuing to shore up Afghan security 
forces, we need a much more comprehensive approach.
  In short, we need to implement SMART Security, the strategy that I've 
spoken of from this spot hundreds of times since 2004. SMART Security 
would replace our military surge with a civilian surge. It would put 
humanitarian aid in front and center. It would emphasize development 
and diplomacy instead of invasion and occupation.
  It would mean, in place of troops and weapons, we send experts with 
tools and resources to rebuild Afghan infrastructure, hospitals, and 
schools. It would mean investing in programs to improve maternal health 
and child mortality. It would mean a focus on democracy promotion and 
rebuilding civil society in Afghanistan. It would also mean shifting 
the emphasis to peace-building, conflict prevention, and human rights 
education.
  This approach would save lives. It would promote peace. It is a 
superior counterterrorism and national security strategy. It will keep 
the American people safe. It will advance our values in a way that a 
decade of war clearly has not.
  We can't wait until 2014, Mr. Speaker. We need a SMART Security 
approach in Afghanistan, and we need it now. And we need to start by 
bringing our troops home.

                          ____________________