Date: 2010-07-01
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I rise strongly to support the Barbara Lee amendment. of which I am a cosponsor. And this is allowing the orderly withdrawal of our troops. one thing that we did not do in the Vietnam war. when we lost 58.000 of our young men and women. who we treasure and thank them for their service. Now today we have the opportunity to do what Congress should do. Its not to give an unending mandate to a war that is not a constitutionally declared war. which this is not. So I would say that if we are looking for the terrorists. al Qaeda is not there. Our intelligence authorities. and General Petraeus have indicated that there are less than a hundred al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. There are insurgents who are the Taliban. It is well known that if you give to the Taliban the mountains and valleys that have been given by General McChrystal. and concentrate your war efforts in the cities. you still will lose this war. The Taliban will never surrender the mountains and will continue to attack. A thousandplus have died. $37 billion is in this bill. We must do what we did not do in Vietnam. and not cry after the fact when we saw the 58.000 body bags come home. Yes. we salute the young men and women who are on the front lines. We thank them for their service and the sacrifice of their families. I have been to Afghanistan many times. and I believe we have a better way. Now is the time to invest in the Afghan people. and the government to make a difference. not continue to lose the precious treasure of America. Stand against this war and have an orderly withdrawal for the sake of the American people and bring our troops home with honor. America has not lost the war. America has created a roadmap for Afghanistan to follow and to build its country up. Our stated. limited military mission was precisely to hold back Talibon momentumi.e.. to "stalemate" itwhile economics development and good governance took hold and we enabled Afghan security forces to replace ours. Instead. our military assistance has dwarfed our development and government effortswhich are still stumblingand no independent analyst seriously thinks the Afghan army and police will be able to take over the nations security for years. Militarys momentum has taken over. We have changed the Afghan equation. but for the worse. The U.S. troop surge illustrates a lesson we learned in Vietnam. Largescale insertion of foreign troops into a domestic insurgencywhatever its initial causedramatically transforms the hostilities from an internal dispute into one focused on driving out "foreign invaders." as Afghanistan has done repeatedly throughout its history. Even if. contrary to fact. a Taliban takeover threatened our security. the Administrations strategy would make no sense. There is a basic contradiction between. on the one hand. the claim that defeating the Taliban is vital to our safety and. on the other hand. the claim that our commitment is short term and of limited extent. The two efforts to square that inconsistency have already proven unrealistic. The Pentagon told us that successful campaigns in Taliban strongholds like Helmand and Kandahar Provinces would break the back of Taliban efforts to control the country and bring them to the bargaining table. The Pentagon told us that successful campaigns in Taliban strongholds like Helmand and Kandahar Provinces would break the back of Taliban efforts to control the country and bring them to the bargaining table. But it now is very unlikely that our military will be holding a decisive upper hand after the Kandahar and similar campaigns. The Helmand campaign remains. at best. a "work in progress." with dubious results thus far. The supposedly decision campaign to "win Kandahar province" has been heavily diluted and downgraded. even before getting fully underway. The new focus on nighttime raids and air strikes continues to kill civilians. badly undercutting U.S. strategy to "win over" the Afghan people. June was the deadliest month of the nineyearlong Afghanistan war. Should the U.S. get out of Afghanistan? Why or why not? Frank Askin. professor of law at Rutgers University. said: There is no use throwing good money (and good bodies) after bad. There can be no successful outcome to this war. unless we are prepared to stay in Afghanistan forever. We need the money back home. Lets just declare victory and get out! Paul Kawika Martin. policy and political director of Peace Action. said: Yes. the U.S. should get the military out of Afghanistan. Today. Representatives in the house will have the opportunity to vote against $33 Billion dollars "emergency" supplemental funding for the failed escalation in Afghanistan. They will also have the opportunity to vote for a MdGovern/Obey amendment that will among other things require the president to present Congress with: (1) a new National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan by January 31. 2011. 2) a plan by April 4. 2011 on the safe. orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. including a timeframe for the completion of the redeployment. The amendment also requires Congress to vote if the president wants to change his announce plan to begin to drawdown troops by July 2011 and expands oversight of private contractors in Afghanistan to deal more effectively with corruption. waste. fraud and abuse. A large coalition of 20 organization representing nearly 13 million people support this amendment because the enormous costs in blood and treasure is not necessarily making Americans safer. Instead. focusing on regional political solutions and investing in Afghanled aid and development that brings people out of poverty has a far better chance of success at a fraction of the cost. Lets not forget that we are funding this war by borrowing from China and as Admiral Mike Mullen. the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. said last week: debt is the number one threat to Americas National Security. It is time to bring our troops home with honor. Total KIA Nonhos- WIA WIA not deaths tile RTD** RTD**