National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, this amendment requires the President of the United States to develop a plan to expedite the reduction of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan and to accelerate the transfer of responsibility for military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan. Before I speak to some of the details, I want to thank the original cosponsors who have worked hard on this amendment: Senator Mike Lee, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Sherrod Brown.
The United States went to Afghanistan with two main goals that were laid out by President Bush: to destroy al-Qaida training camps and to hunt down those responsible for 9/11. Our very capable American troops and their NATO partners have aggressively pursued these objectives. There are very few al-Qaida operating in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in June 2010 that there were at most only 50 to 100 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is no longer and has not been for some time a central arena for al-Qaida activity.
American forces have also effectively pursued the second objective, which is capturing or killing those who attacked America on 9/11. In recent years, America has captured or killed two dozen high-level al-Qaida operatives, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged operational mastermind of the September 11 attacks, who was captured in a raid on a house in the Pakistani garrison city of Rawalpindi near the capital, Islamabad; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, described as a key facilitator of the September 11 attacks; Sheikh Sa'id Masri, an Egyptian believed to have acted as the operational leader of al-Qaida, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Most importantly, our exceptional intelligence teams and armed services have tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden, the founder and head of al-Qaida.
Citizens may fairly ask--and they do ask--given that we have successfully pursued our original two missions, isn't it time to bring our sons and daughters home? Our citizens remind us that the United States has been at war in Afghanistan for over 10 years, the longest war in American history. Our citizens recognize that the war in Afghanistan has come at a terrible price. More than 1,200 Americans have died from snipers, from improvised explosive devices, and other deadly weapons of war. More than 6,700 Americans have been wounded by those same weapons. Thousands of our soldiers have suffered from--and will suffer for years, decades to come--traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Our soldiers have paid a huge price. Their families have paid a huge price.
In addition, the war in Afghanistan has consumed and is consuming an enormous share of our national resources. According to the Congressional Research Service, by the end of this year--just over a month from now--we will have spent the better part of $ 1/2 trillion or approximately $444 billion. In 2011 alone, we will spend about $120 billion.
So what is the answer to our citizens who ask, given our success in destroying al-Qaida training camps and given our success in pursuing those responsible for 9/11, why we haven't brought our troops and our tax dollars home. The official answer is that America has expanded its mission in Afghanistan from the narrow two original objectives of destroying al-Qaida and hunting down those responsible for 9/11 to the broad mission of nation building.
Destroying al-Qaida--our original mission--and building a modern nation state where one has never existed are two entirely different things. The expanded mission of nation building in Afghanistan goes way beyond those original two military objectives. This expanded nation-building mission involves creating a strong central government. It involves creating an election process for a functioning democracy. It involves building infrastructure--roads and bridges and schools. It involves a major mission to create a sizable national police force and a sizable and effective national army.
We have spent a lot on this mission, but the success is limited. Over 10 years, as I mentioned, we have spent $444 billion. Now, that is in a nation that had a prewar gross domestic product, or economy, of about $10 billion a year.
So we have spent an amount equal to 44 times the economy of Afghanistan. One would think the result is we would have rebuilt the infrastructure of Afghanistan 10 times over or 20 times over. But the reality is there is very little to show for this nation-building mission. Why is that the case? Most simply, this nation-building mission is systematically stymied by multiple forces. One is high illiteracy.
On my recent trip to Afghanistan, I was told that among those recruited for the national police, the literacy rate at a first grade level is only about 16 percent--first grade level, 16 percent. The goal is to be able to raise that literacy rate so that soldiers can read the serial numbers on their rifles. That is a very different world from the world we live in.
The second huge factor is vast corruption. Just after my first trip to Afghanistan, the newspapers were full of stories about the family members and the associates of the President of Afghanistan building massive mansions in Dubai. Well, sending our money to Afghanistan so the elite can send it to Dubai to build mansions does not serve our national security.
The efforts in nation building are stymied by deeply felt, ancient tribal and ethnic divisions. Moreover, there is a strong national aversion to the very mission of building a strong central government. I had an interesting experience where I met with six Pashtun tribal leaders in Kabul, the capital. They came in to share their stories and each one of them said that some form of the government you are trying to build is an affliction to our people. Please do not build a stronger government that exploits and afflicts our people. I said to them, help me understand this, because building a government means a force that can help with education, that can help with health care, that can help build transportation infrastructure, that can help provide security for businesses to prosper. They spoke to me and said--one of them summed it up and said, Senator, you don't understand. All of the government positions here are sold. The people who buy them do not buy them to serve our people. They buy them to exploit our people. And when you build a strong central government, which we oppose, the exploitation increases.
So this nation-building mission is systematically stymied by high illiteracy, vast corruption, extensive and deep tribal and ethnic divisions, and a historic national aversion to a strong central government.
We have been in Afghanistan for more than 10 years. It is time to change course. Our President recognizes this. He has worked out an agreement with the NATO partners to remove the remaining combat troops by the end of 2014. That is just over 3 years from now. But what happens during this next 3 years? This amendment says: Mr. President, during these next 3 years, seize the opportunity to diminish the combat role of American soldiers and increase the responsibility placed with the Afghanistan Government and the Afghanistan forces. Seize that opportunity.
I say to my colleagues today, this is incredibly important for our success in transferring responsibility. If we do not provide the opportunity and the necessity for the Afghanistan institutions to take responsibility for their own security, they will not be prepared to exercise that responsibility down the road.
The United States is facing a global terrorist threat. We will be well served by using U.S. troops and resources in a coun ter ter ror ism strategy against terrorist forces wherever in the world they may locate and train. That strategy was highlighted by the pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or more recently our successful pursuit of Anwar Awlaki in Yemen. Our intelligence and our military, the best in the world, have proven without a doubt that they excel at this strategy. Thus, it makes sense to expedite the reduction of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerate the responsibility for military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan. That is what this amendment does.
The amendment specifically requires the President to prepare a plan for the
expedited reduction of troops and accelerate transfer responsibility based on inputs from military commanders, from NATO and coalition allies, from diplomatic missions in the region, from appropriate members of the Cabinet, and from consultation with Congress. What this amendment does not do is it does not limit our ability to identify an attack by al-Qaida or terrorist forces wherever they may be in the world. It does not limit our ability to destroy al-Qaida or associated terrorist training camps wherever they may be, wherever they are in the world. It does not restrict funding for supplies and equipment needed by our troops deployed in the field.
If our national security is well served by taking the fight to al-Qaida wherever they are, if our nation-building strategy in Afghanistan is confounded by illiteracy and corruption and cultural opposition and tribal and ethnic conflicts, if our national resources are needed in that global anti ter ror ism strategy and are needed as well for nation building here at home, if our men and women have suffered enough on Afghan soil, then we should encourage our President to seize every opportunity over these next 3 years to reduce our forces in Afghanistan and to transfer security responsibilities to the Afghan Government.
That is what this amendment does, and I encourage every colleague to support it.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MERKLEY. The Senator is correct. The amendment is designed to encourage, to increase the pace of the reduction of U.S. forces and the transfer of responsibility to Afghanistan's forces.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source