Afghanistan War Powers Resolution

Floor Speech

Afghanistan War Powers Resolution

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which would urge the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, in my opinion, at great cost to America's security and, indeed, the Afghan people. But I want to rise as well to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), with whom I work closely. This issue needs to be debated. This issue needs to be raised. The American people have a right to have us debate this issue.

Their young men and young women are in harm's way. They are in harm's way at our insistence, or at least at our sufferance. So it is right to have this debate. And while I disagree with the gentleman from Ohio, I appreciate the fact that he provides this opportunity to discuss this very, very important issue.

Madam Speaker, after years in which Afghanistan was a secondary concern, in my view, President Obama has set our policy on a new course which is already showing significant results. I believe that this is not the time to change that policy.

There is vast agreement that an indefinite presence in Afghanistan or Iraq is unacceptable. In Iraq we have reached the transition point of handing over responsibility to the central Government to take care of its own people. We see positive signs, such as the recent Iraq election in which 62 percent of the voters turned out in the face of terrorist violence. Was it perfect? It was not. Are there concerns yet about who could run and who could not? There are, appropriate concerns. But nevertheless, we see progress.

Given the increasing stability of the Iraq Government, President Obama is proceeding with responsible troop withdrawals. Today, 96,000 American troops remain, down from 140,000 troops, and calculated and careful drawdowns continue. All American combat troops are set to leave Iraq by the end of August.

At the same time, the President conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of our Afghanistan policy, one in which all viewpoints were heard. Some thought it took too long; some of us believed it was a careful, thoughtful, and correct attention to an important decision.

The Obama administration came to the conclusion that a failed Afghanistan was the launching pad for terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans as well as a source of regional instability, and that a newly failed Afghan state could pose the same danger again. That is why we, in a bipartisan way, authorized troops to go to Afghanistan about a decade ago. That is why the President committed to a strategy of troop increases, not as an open-ended commitment, but as part of a limited strategy of counterinsurgency with withdrawals set to begin in the summer of 2011.

This is not a war we fight alone. Our allies understand that the threat of terrorism affects us all and have pitched in accordingly. Since the President's December 1 speech announcing his new policy, we have seen a sharp increase in international cooperation with our allies, pledging approximately 10,000 additional troops and more military trainees.

Our new Afghan strategy has already seen real success in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, which demonstrates that this resolution is especially ill-timed. Among the highlights of that success have been the capture of Mullah Baradar, the second-highest ranking member of the Taliban and most significant Taliban capture since the beginning of the war, and Mullah Abdul Kabir, a senior Taliban leader. Both were captured in Pakistan, which illustrates increased cooperation from the Pakistan Government, thanks in large part to the administration's careful diplomacy.

As The Washington Post put it on February 23, ``Pakistani security forces have long supported or turned a blind eye to Afghan Taliban members seeking sanctuary in Pakistan. The recent arrests seem to mark a change in that attitude.'' Clearly, success in Afghanistan will be posited on the success of those in Pakistan to act against sanctuaries. At the same time, the leadership of al Qaeda and Taliban has been severely damaged through strikes in Pakistan. And the new counterinsurgency strategy has been put to work in Marjah, an important district in Helmand province, where American, coalition, and Afghan troops have worked and fought successfully together to strengthen the central Government against Taliban fighters.

Let me say, the gentleman has made some comments about the Afghan central Government. All of us share the gentleman's concerns about the central Government. These are concerns that are properly raised and need to be addressed. However, there is no doubt that years of war against the Taliban and terrorists have imposed a heavy cost on the Afghan people. Despite those heavy costs, the Afghan people support the coalition's continued presence in their country, perhaps because they know that reprisals from an unchecked Taliban would be fierce and unforgiving. In fact, our failure to follow through when the Soviets withdrew resulted, very frankly, in the Taliban's presence.

According to a recent poll conducted by the BBC, ABC, and German television, 68 percent of Afghans want American troops to stay in their country and 56 percent of Afghans believe their country is headed in the right direction, compared to just 30 percent last spring. Just since last spring, we have seen almost a doubling of the view that Afghanistan is heading in the right direction on behalf of Afghan citizens.

Madam Speaker, there is no question that our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has suffered from neglect, poor planning, and minimal diplomacy, but passing this resolution would show that we've learned the wrong lessons from those years of relative neglect. Abandoning Afghanistan just when a new strategy and new leadership has begun to bear fruit I think would be a mistake. And although I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and incisive analysis, which bears listening to, on this issue we disagree.

I would urge, therefore, my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution before us.

Source