Press Conference with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Ed Whitfeld (R-KY) and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Press Conference
Press Conference with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Ed Whitfeld (R-KY) and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA). Subject: Sending Additional Troops to Afghanistan.
Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
REP. JONES: I want to thank each one. I'm Walter Jones. I represent the Third Congressional District of North Carolina. It is the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Cherry Point Marine Air Station, and also Seymour Johnson Air Force Base.
I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I'm the member of Congress who has -- who signed 8,153 letters to our men and women -- the families of our men and women who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. I started that during the Iraq War when I felt guilty that I had voted to give the president authority to go into Iraq.
Obviously, some of these were killed in Afghanistan. At the time, I thought that was the war that we should have been fighting, not going into Iraq.
I'm going to MC this. I'm going to let the co-author of this letter, Ron Paul, to speak second. I'm going to save my other comments for the end. Then Dennis Kucinich will speak, then Ed Whitfield, and then I will wrap this up and we'll take questions from you at that time.
So with that, I'm going to introduce Congressman Paul. And then Congressman Dennis Kucinich will step when he finishes and introduce himself. And that's the way -- will be the order. But you will have time for questions if you would like to have questions.
REP. PAUL: Okay. Thank you very much, Walter. And thank you for leading the charge on that and getting our co-sponsors of this letter which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.
I approach this, maybe, from a slightly different perspective than the others but, nevertheless, over the years, both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats have come together, and are goals have been very similar.
But my approach has been dealing with foreign policy overall. And as a member of Foreign Affairs Committee, my approach is that I think our country should be a lot less involved overseas. And we should be working hard to get along with people without confrontation.
And that is what was advised to us by the founding fathers. And yet, today, I see that our foreign policy, too much, has been not so much negotiation and diplomacy as much as threatening people. And if they do what we tell them, we give them a lot of money. Or if they don't do what we tell them, we tend to confront them militarily.
And I see what's going on in Afghanistan much in the same way. It has nothing -- it has nothing to do with the al Qaeda. It has nothing to do with bin Laden. This is occupation, and it's being perpetuated. It's a continuation of the Bush policy. And I think our effort here in writing this letter is just urging caution because we're hoping, with the new administration, that we'll have an administration that will lend itself more to diplomacy and working through other means other than always military confrontation.
But quite frankly, sending 17,000 troops over there and continuing the drone bombing of Pakistan is hardly a change in policy. So I am delighted that we have a nice group of members that signed this asking the president to be more cautious and, with our fingers crossed, at least mine, I'm hoping for the better.
But, nevertheless, I think the American people and the members of Congress that represent this position have an obligation to be alert and to do whatever we can to have a new type of policy so that we can work toward peace in a much different way than military confrontation.
And now I'd like to introduce Dennis Kucinich.
REP. KUCINICH: Thank you very much, Congressman Paul.
I am pleased to be here to join with Ron Paul and my colleagues on this important letter to the president which is a letter calling on the president to reconsider a military escalation in Afghanistan.
We're now entering the eighth year of a war in Afghanistan, years that have culminated in a deteriorating security situation and lack of a comprehensive political outcome. There appears to be no end in sight.
Less than 10 cents out of every dollar spent in Afghanistan goes to nonmilitary aid. And the U.S. aid that does receive Afghanis is shamefully sparse. The country is plagued by poverty, illiteracy, and a lack of economic opportunity.
Unemployment in Afghanistan and a lack of economic progress have -- has left many Afghanis little choice but to turn to the cultivation of opium poppies for a source of income. Compounding that is the fact that the production of opium seem to have gone up stratospherically at the same time that the United States is occupying large areas of Afghanistan.
Instead of a troop surge and prolonging the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. should address the situation by immediately beginning high- level diplomatic negotiations with the countries of Middle East in an effort to establish true stability and peace in the region.
A troop surge is not the answer. Afghani citizens and families do not need more destruction and violence. They need homes, jobs and education. They need security, the rule of law and opportunity. And a continued U.S. occupation and, even worse, an escalation is not going to provide that for them.
I think that those who are here today can see that -- and the individuals who are on this stage -- a diversity of political positions within the Congress. And that may cause people across the country to understand that this is not an issue, a province of liberals or conservatives and left to right. But that, in fact, that American eagle needs two wings to fly. And, right now, we need to make sure that we fly home.
REP. WHITFIELD: Thank you very much.
My name is Ed Whitfield. I represent the 1st Congressional District of Kentucky which happens to include Fort Campbell, which is the home of the 101st Airborne Division and 5th Special Forces Group. And I want to thank Walter Jones for initiating this letter to the president asking the president to reassess, review his recent decision to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
All of us are very proud and totally supportive of the great job that our young men and women in the military have done. But I, like these fellows, was a little bit perplexed when President Obama made the decision to increase the troops in Afghanistan, particularly when his administration is in the process of reviewing their long-term strategy for Afghanistan.
As you know, the president is getting ready to go to the NATO summit at the end of April, I believe. And I know they're undergoing reviews right now -- the Defense Department recommendations, White House department recommendations, and Central Command's assessment.
And David -- General David Petraeus recently, I read in a report, cautioned that a surge of forces like the ones that worked well in Iraq probably would not work in Afghanistan. So with our country already reeling from an economic recession and six years of war in the Middle East, I think escalating our troop presence in Afghanistan before plotting a new strategy in a comprehensive way is not a wise course of action.
So all of us want to be supportive of the president, but I do think it's imperative that he develop a long-term strategy before committing additional troops to Afghanistan.
So thank you very much for allowing us to be here today.
REP. MCGOVERN: I'm Congressman Jim McGovern from the 3rd District of Massachusetts. And thankfully, it appears that, at long last, we're planning an exit strategy in Iraq. This is a war that has cost us dearly.: hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of Americans dead, and a diminishment of our stature around the world.
We are also fighting another war in Afghanistan, and that war, over the last several years, has been eclipsed by events and attention on Iraq. President Obama has pledged that he is going to review our policy in Iraq, and I welcome that. There should be a thorough review, and there should be a clearly articulated and defined mission in Afghanistan including an exist strategy.
I, for one, do not believe there is a military solution to be had in Afghanistan. I think it is a mistake to send additional troops to Afghanistan at this time especially before a complete review of our policy is finished. I have a sinking feeling that we are getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end, a greater war where our strategy and goals are unclear.
Now, I don't think that the same-old, same-old will work in Afghanistan. I do believe -- and I believe this very strongly -- that the United States and the world community must not abandon the people of Afghanistan. They have suffered terribly with wars and extreme poverty.
I don't have all the answers, but, perhaps, this is a moment, as some of my colleagues have said, to think a little differently and to think out of the box on how we can best help ordinary people in Afghanistan, how we can combat terrorism, and how we can ensure the security of the people of the United States.
Afghanistan is a very poor country with millions who live in extreme poverty. These are people who are hungry. They're without education. They have no access to health care. They have nothing. Their lives, for many, are a living hell. In my opinion, we need to respond more directly to those needs, not only to the people in Afghanistan but to people around the world. And there needs to be an international coordinated effort.
As I've said, and others have said, we need to get Afghanistan right. But getting Afghanistan right, in my opinion, does not mean an escalation of military forces.
Let me close with some advice for the new administration. And I'm paraphrasing Lyndon Johnson. He said it's easy get into war, but it's hard as hell to get out of war. We need to take this opportunity to thoroughly review this policy, to debate this policy, and to articulate a clearly defined mission.
And that is really what's behind the letter that we're sending to the president. We need some clarity in this policy. In our opinion, when you get that review, you get that clarity. It will -- we will take a different approach.
Thank you.
REP. JONES: Thank you, Jim. I am going to people for just three or four minutes and then we're going to take questions from you.
As you noted from the letter that -- we emphasize to the president Russia spent nine years in Afghanistan and lost many billions of dollars and more than 15,000 Russian troops. We urge you to reconsider your decision.
We, right now in this country, don't even know how we're going to deal with and face with PTSD. The number of troops with mental health problems are going to be enormous [sic]. All we're asking to do is, Mr. President, those of us in both party were hopeful when you became the president of the United States that you would move carefully and methodically and listen to the experts, both pro and con, on the issue of what we should be doing in Afghanistan.
And when 17,000 troops put their feet on the ground in Afghanistan, that would bring the total to somewhere around 51,000 American troops. And to this day and that day, probably, only 19,000 NATO-type troops. This country is facing a possible failure in the government of Mexico right across the border.
We've got problems in South America, Central America. We have a crisis here in this country, an economic crisis. And I think, again, in closing, all we're asking, please, Mr. President, give the opportunity to the advisers and to those in the Congress as well as the military to talk about this policy and how we can have success instead of having to build up a 51,000 to 100,000, and then we've got the same problem that other great nations have had in Afghanistan.
They're in a bad situation that they cannot get out of. Let us know what we're going to do before we begin this escalation because it will be too late if we're talking about this one year from now. It will be too late.
So with that, if you have any questions, if you'll raise your hands. Yes, sir.
And any member you want to talk to, or --
Q -- whoever wants to take it.
REP. JONES: Okay.
Q You -- as you well noted, very bipartisan group but also fairly small as bipartisan efforts go. Is there hope to bring in other members from both sides? Are you getting much reaction?
REP. JONES: Let me tell you, this was -- Ron Paul and I thought about this, and others have probably been thinking about it.
We've got 15 signatures in about two weeks. If we wanted to do this news conference in May, I would guarantee you that that would have been five times that number. But we felt like it was important because of the announcement on February the 17th by the president of 17,000 troops. And we want him to know that, at this point before Easter, there is a group. and this group can grow and expand. But we just thought it was important two weeks out before the break, we thought we needed to make this statement.
REP. KUCINICH: It's also, if you look at it, the number of senior members that have signed this letter were among the 15.
REP. JONES: Yes, ma'am.
Q I'm Susan Cornwell with Reuters.
Did any of you vote against the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan in 2001?
REP. WHITFIELD: No. But --
Q So you all voted for it?
REP. WHITFIELD: Right. But understand -- go back and read the resolution.
Q Got it.
REP. WHITFIELD: All right. And one of the things that we are concerned about is that what we voted for is not what's happening now. I mean, there's mission creep. There's a whole new -- there's a whole new kind of, you know, a whole new set of priorities here.
Look, I voted for that resolution because I thought it was important to respond to the terrible attacks on September 11th. And I believe those people who were responsible for killings of American citizens and others need to be held to account.
But what we're doing in Afghanistan now is far beyond what we voted for.
REP. KUCINICH: And I -- as someone who led the effort against the war in Iraq, I'd like to speak to the question that you raised. And that is that this congressional action, as we remember it, was in response to the attacks of 9/11. America had been attacked, and we wanted to make sure that we authorized our government to respond to attack the training camps that were in Afghanistan.
The Bush administration decided to go far beyond what Congress had intended and set forth, for their purposes, a permanent occupation. Congress has the obligation to measure the response of an administration.
And so while we agreed, with the exception of Barbara Lee, to support the attack as a matter of national defense policy, in no way did we give the Bush administration a blank check to use that to stay in Afghanistan -- which has been counterproductive, I might add -- or to expand the war into Iraq.
You know, we had a separate vote on that. And again, I -- you know, we're about to observe the sixth anniversary of the attack on Iraq. That's another press conference for another day.
But just, you know, don't think for a moment that any member who voted on that authorization was voting for an occupation of Afghanistan. We were voting for a response by the United States of America so that the world community would know that we were going to defend our country.
Q So who's going to write the bill that redefines the mission in Afghanistan? Is there any discussion about doing that? Because it's one thing to introduce a letter, but it's not thing to --
REP. PAUL: Well, it's not easily done, but the Congress has the responsibility ultimately to do it, and it has to do with funding. They say we don't have any responsibility in foreign policy, but that's absolutely wrong. We have ultimate responsibility; that is, we're supposed to declare the wars and we're supposed to support it by funding. So if the executive branch doesn't come up with a designation, then after many, many years it'll come to a funding.
But I would like to just add emphasis on what the other two members just stated about the authority because I imagine, if you look at my record over 10 years or so, that might have been the only appropriation bill I voted for. And it was precisely because of the immediate attack. And it was -- as Senator (sic) McGovern points out, it was -- it was directed right at, you know, the al Qaeda and bin Laden, and never for occupation, which is a very dangerous thing to do because when administrations do this, regardless of which one it is, it teaches us or it gets us to the point where we shouldn't ever give them any authority to do anything because they violate -- I mean, here we give them the authority and it's directed, and then it goes into nation-building. So to me, it's a criminal offense on what they do.
Q Well, then who's going to write the bill, the legislation that clarifies -- that takes that, you know, situation --
REP. PAUL: Okay, I'll restate it again and let somebody else say it. But I don't think we can write the bill unless we do it through the funding because it's up to the administration to design the policy on how -- on how they bring and when they bring the troops home. They ought to make the decision, but we're trying to influence that.
But, Jim, if you'd like to be more specific.
Q Will this be debated during the next supplemental?
REP. MCGOVERN: I think absolutely this will be debated.
But look, here's the deal. Does anyone here -- could anyone here articulate what our policy is in Afghanistan? I mean, the bottom line is one of the things we're asking for is clarity. I mean, they're going to review the policy. There are a lot of people -- there are a lot of military people who say that the way we're doing this is not the right way. Let's have a review of the policy. Let's have a debate. Let's have consultation with Congress. Let's find out whether we're doing this right.
I mean, you know, during the debate on Iraq, we would always say, you know, it's keeping us away from getting Afghanistan right. Well, now we're starting to get out of Iraq, and what does it need to get Afghanistan right? And I think some of us believe there is not a military solution to be had, and some of us believe that it is important that we have a thorough airing of this issue -- that we have a full debate, that there is a clear articulation of what our mission is.
And in articulating that, also an exit strategy. I mean, what is the beginning? What is the middle? What is the end? We don't have that. And what we voted for on September 11th -- and I would have voted for -- I would vote for it again because, you know, that act of terrorism was so horrendous that I think we needed to respond. This is not -- this is not a reflection of what we voted on.
So we're asking for some clarity here, and we want a debate. And there is a process here. And there will be debates during the appropriations process. There may be legislation drafted. But it's important that these issues get discussed and clarified.
REP. KUCINICH: You could -- if I just may add one thing, because you raised a question about legislation. And, Molly, the situation is that Congress could conceivably have legislation before it to withdraw from Afghanistan. The president really doesn't have to pay any attention to that. What he has to pay attention, where Congress' ultimate power is, is the power of the purse. That's why the real debate is going to -- you know, if there's going to be a surge, it's going to be on the debate about sending more troops, and that's going to be in the defense appropriations debate. And when that bill comes up, I think you'll see not only these members, but many more raise these issues.
The problem is that we could end up -- if we don't raise this now, we could end up being in Afghanistan for God knows how long with the idea that the administration -- you know, people follow a party line or whatever it is. No, this is -- this is a bipartisan effort to take a new direction and to give the administration a message that, look, rethink this. Give it another thought. Remember what happened to the British? To the Russians? And look what's happening to us right now. This is not a good -- a prudent step to take.
REP. JONES: One other point very quickly. One thing that we have not really discussed in the way you asked questions, what is the condition of our troops? We have men and women in the military -- Army, Marine Corps -- that are going back three, four and five times. Think about the stress on our military. They have fought in six -- for six years in Iraq, seven years in Afghanistan, and now we're going to double and triple the troops? They are human beings with families. We better know where we're going. We never had an end point in Iraq, and that's why we're here today.
Q When I hear this debate from this membership here, it sounds almost as though I could interchange the word "Iraq with "Afghanistan" and "President Obama" with "President Bush." And essentially, if we were to go back in time three or four years, this would be ostensibly what we would be talking about. It seems like -- are we basically just saying -- expressing the same concern here, the same reservations that many of you had about President Bush in Iraq?
REP. PAUL: I think you're absolutely right, but that shouldn't -- even though that leads to a bit of frustration over it in saying that we didn't do a very good job staying out of Iraq, that should never let our guard down. And there's a group of us here that would like to get the message out that we shouldn't have another episode like this.
And quite frankly, my personal opinion is those who brag about victory in Iraq are daydreaming. And there's nothing much other than -- it's not much of a good daydream when you think of 4,000-plus people being killed plus all the other problems. So I would say just because it sounds like Iraq, that might give us even more incentive to do this because how many more Iraqs and Afghanistans can we tolerate? Financially, not many more. And that's what this financial market is telling us today. And that is the empire cannot be defended because eventually the financial conditions of a country limit that ability.
REP. WHITFIELD: I would just say that most of us, certainly, voted for the resolution on Iraq. The Status of Forces Agreement has been reached in Iraq and the troops are going to be out of there by the summer of 2010.
But I think that we're providing -- I think it's important for the American people and all of us to have a genuine discussion and debate, as everyone has said, about the strategy -- the exit strategy with clarity. And that's precisely what we're asking.
President Obama made a commitment to send the additional troops in before their assessment was finished, before their strategy developed. And I think we've learned a lot over the last six years, and we want to be very careful the way we move forward in Afghanistan. And that's, I think, all that this group is asking for.
REP. JONES: Let me close on this statement -- not close the questions, but just on this point.
It is obvious that the previous administration had no end point. We had no end point. The difference is Mr. Obama has been the president for about six or seven weeks now, maybe eight. We want him to -- we want to encourage him from the beginning not to make the same policy mistakes that George Bush made in Iraq.
Q So do you want benchmarks with the Obama stamp -- (off mike) -- what kind of benchmarks -- (off mike)?
REP. JONES: I would say that the difference is -- and maybe the Democrats would like to speak to this -- but the difference for me as a Republican, because of the lack of definition of victory or what victory should be, that we continue to continue a war and a -- and a -- that really we didn't know what the end point was.
I'm hopeful that Mr. Obama will listen not just to this little group here today, but to his advisers and say that we've got to have the benchmarks that you mentioned or what we call or I call the end point, because I will never forget General Zinni saying to me -- a great Marine general -- that you have no war strategy unless you have an end point to the strategy.
Q Would you consider putting conditions on the defense appropriations or the supplemental requiring these kinds of benchmarks or (would it even work ?)?
REP. PAUL: We've already answered that, I think.
REP. KUCINICH: Well, you know, Congress has -- the ultimate power of the Congress has is the power of the purse. You can put any conditions you want on legislation, but an executive can ignore them. But what an executive cannot ignore is the issue of the appropriations. That's -- and see, this is what Congress did not do with Iraq, even though man of us have tried many times to ask Congress to cut the funding. And that, then, produces the -- some metrics. And so it could come to this.
And I would just like to conclude my part in this by making this statement, and that is that, look what's happening to our country. You want to talk about a surge in Afghanistan? How about a surge to keep people in their homes? How about a health care surge? How about an employment/jobs surge?
You know, we have things in America that are not being taken care of. We're in a period of unprecedented economic decline since the Great Depression. How are we going to afford these wars? I mean, somebody's got to -- that bill has to come due. And then when you spend money on war, that means some other needs aren't being met.
The American family right now really needs its government to focus on things here at home. Do we have a role in the world? Absolutely. But not a singular role. Not a singular role. That's why what we're calling for is more international cooperation to look at this situation in Afghanistan and at the same time ask our president -- our president -- to reconsider his decision to escalate.
Thank you.
Q I hear you saying don't escalate, but is anyone saying bring all the troops home now? And I would add to that, you know, should we bring them home without having caught bin Laden? Perhaps he's just a few miles over into Pakistan, but the assumption that he's --
REP. MCGOVERN: Well, let me say I'm not sure that the mission right now is solely to go after Osama bin Laden. I mean, we're very much involved in Afghanistan, again, in a far deeper way than any of us thought we would be.
What we're asking here really I don't think is that -- you know, that radical of an idea. All we're saying is, look, we'd like some clarity. We'd like to have a debate. We want to know what we're doing. I mean, why is that such a -- you know, such an unusual -- unusual request?
We didn't -- you know, we didn't have this kind of give and take during the Iraq war. President Obama has inherited this situation. You know, and now -- now he's the president of the United States and he's going to have to deal with it. What we want to do is make sure that, you know, when we go back and talk to constituents that we can say that, you know, this is what our policy is. Here's the clarity. And we can either agree or disagree with it.
I mean, what we're saying is sending troops before you have that clarity, before you have that clearly defined mission with an exit strategy, to us seems to be a mistake. You know, and -- you know, different members will have different opinions as we go forward. But at this point, what we're saying is, look, you know, you know, do your review. Let's have a discussion. Let's figure out what we're doing. Let's figure out whether it makes sense to do this.
I mean, my gut feeling tells me no. And as I said before, I have this sinking feeling that we're just getting deeper and deeper and deeper. And the deeper we get, the harder -- into this thing -- the harder it is to get out. And I believe we do have an obligation to the people of Afghanistan, and I think that's a humanitarian obligation. But I think -- you know, I signed this letter because I am very nervous about what we're doing. And I know a lot of my constituents are, too.
So we're -- you know, we're raising some flags here. Let's have this discussion. Let's have this debate. I mean, it just seems so logical to me.
REP. JONES: Let me thank you.
I believe that's our time. If you have any questions for anybody that's here, we'll be glad to talk with you. And thank you for coming and your interest in this issue. Thank you very much.
END
Source