Afghanistan

Floor Speech

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people should have serious questions when it comes to the war in Afghanistan, and I believe we need answers before we ever talk about sending additional young men and women into that conflict.

General Stanley McChrystal told us this week that he needs more troops in Afghanistan or else our mission there will likely result in failure, but there seems to be some confusion over what that mission is.

Question one: Are we building nations or hunting terrorists? The administration has stated that its primary goal is preventing al Qaeda from operating, but General McChrystal has stated that his mission is to protect the Afghan civilians and establish good governance. These objects are related, but they are not the same. As the President has stated, we must first define our strategy, and then we will determine how to resource it.

Question two: How many troops will we need? The figure being discussed is an additional 40,000 to 45,000 more troops on top of the 68,000 already in Afghanistan. But experts such as General Charles Krulak put the figure for a successful counterinsurgency at several hundred thousand. The greater our footprint over there, the more it looks like an occupation to a people who have violently resisted occupations for centuries.

Question three: Are we stretching our Army to its breaking point? Many of our troops are on their third or fourth tour. That has an impact on families and communities. Many of our National Guard units have left equipment over there and faced recruitment problems over here.

Question four: How long will these troops be there? It's not enough to decide we can manage it for another year or two with greater deployment. Without a specific end date, a decision to increase deployment today means more troops next year and the year after that.

Question five: Where will we get enough troops with the experience needed in Afghanistan? The military needs more IED experts to diffuse roadside bombs; however, it takes 11 months to train a bomb specialist, and these specialists are already in short supply.

We also need translators, medical officers, and other specialists that could require a great deal of training, yet we continue to kick out such specialists because of the immoral and extraordinarily shortsighted ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

Question six: How many NATO forces can we count on, and how will we maintain an effective command structure? We are told that this cannot be a go-it-alone mission, but resources in other NATO countries are limited, and incidents such as the German airstrike show the dangers of coalition warfare.

Question seven: Can we count on the Government of Pakistan to remain with us in this fight? Pakistan has a great deal of trouble controlling the tribal areas, and our continued presence is causing more unrest in the cities.

Question eight: Is it worth American lives to prop up the Government of Afghanistan? The Government faces serious charges of election fraud and corruption, and it appears to be losing control over much of the country as the Taliban moves in.

Question nine: Is this a winnable war? In General McChrystal's recent report he states that although the situation is serious, success is still achievable, but we still don't have a definition of success.

Final question: Is the war in Afghanistan really the best approach to protect the American people from terrorism? Our focus needs to be on protecting the people of the United States and stopping the international spread of terrorism. If this war is not the best way to do that, we need to leave. We cannot send more troops to fight for an undefined amount of time in an undefined mission and for an undefined success.

Source