[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 192 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8906-H8907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
END THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN NOW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday The New York Times reported
that our Ambassador in Afghanistan, Ryan C. Crocker, told a group of
journalists that U.S. troops could stay in Afghanistan long past the
President's 2014 deadline if the Afghan Government asked us to stay.
The very next day, The New York Times reported Afghan President Hamid
Karzai blaming foreigners, including the United States, for the
corruption that is so rampant in his government. He had the audacity to
say this at an event marking International Anti-Corruption Day.
Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the
earth. Transparency International ranks Afghanistan as the second most
corrupt government, right behind Somalia and North Korea, which tied
for first place.
So I ask my colleagues, why should we shed a single drop more of
blood, sacrifice the lives of our service men and women, for a corrupt
government that doesn't even have the decency to take responsibility
for its own failures.
Enough is enough. We have spent over $440 billion on military
operations alone in Afghanistan since 9/11. In 2012 we aim to spend
another $113 billion. By this time next year, our total spending on the
war in Afghanistan, just the military operations, will be around $557
billion. That's over half a trillion dollars.
And when I say ``spend,'' I really mean borrow, because from day one
of the Afghanistan war--and the Iraq war, for that matter--we have not
paid for the military operations in these wars. We have borrowed nearly
every single penny of that money, put it on the national credit card,
let it rack up over a quarter of our cumulative deficit, and help
explode our debt year after year for a decade.
Sadly, when it comes to paying for this war, too many in Washington
are silent.
Mr. Speaker, over 1,800 service men and women have died in
Afghanistan, 42 of them from Massachusetts. Over 14,000 wounded.
Husbands, fathers, wives, and mothers. Sons and daughters, brothers and
sisters. Holes created in families and communities that can never be
filled, losses that will be felt for a generation or more.
Each month the tally of dead and wounded gets higher. 2010 was the
deadliest year for American troops in the history of the Afghanistan
war. And 2011, a close second.
We have become numb to the numbers. We don't even hear them any more.
But these losses resonate around family kitchen tables in the homes of
the deployed every day and night of the year.
We all know that the human cost of the war is found not only on the
battlefields of Afghanistan. It's also found in veterans hospitals and
counseling clinics around the country. We continue to struggle with
soaring rates of traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress and
suicides among our soldiers and our veterans. So many leave the service
or try and carry on military careers wounded in both body and soul.
Even if we were to leave Afghanistan tomorrow--and I'm so very glad
to see that our troops are coming home from Iraq--our war debt will
continue for decades. And for what? For 10 years of support for a
corrupt government in Afghanistan? Ten years of sacrificing our brave
uniformed men and women? Ten years of borrowing money we never had?
This war is no longer about going after al Qaeda--which I voted to do.
Osama bin Laden is dead. Instead, we're now bogged down in a seemingly
endless occupation in support of an incompetent and corrupt Karzai
government. This is not what I voted for.
So yes, I'm really worried when I pick up the newspaper and read
Ambassador Crocker saying we may be in Afghanistan for years beyond
2014. The American people are way ahead of the Congress and the White
House on this issue. They want this war ended now. But it seems that
Washington just doesn't get it. But when all is said and done, the
responsibility for continuing or ending the war is right here in this
Chamber. We approved this war, we must now take the responsibility to
end it.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the conference report
on the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization bill. The defense bill
includes many good and important provisions, but it does nothing,
absolutely nothing to wind down the war in Afghanistan.
It's way past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. I can't
authorize any more funding that doesn't explicitly call on the
President to plan and carry out the accelerated removal of our troops.
Bring them home, Mr. President. Bring them all home now.
[From the New York Times, Dec. 10, 2011]
U.S. Troops Could Stay in Afghanistan Past Deadline, Envoy Says
(By Rod Nordland)
Kabul, Afghanistan--The American ambassador to Afghanistan
on Saturday raised the possibility that United States combat
troops could stay in the country beyond the 2014 deadline
that the White House had set for their withdrawal.
The ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, speaking at a roundtable
event with a small group of journalists, said that if the
Afghan government wanted American troops to stay longer, the
withdrawal could be slowed. ``They would have to ask for
it,'' he said. ``I could certainly see us saying, `Yeah,
makes sense.' ''
He emphasized, however, that no such decision had been
made.
White House officials said that Mr. Crocker's comments were
consistent with its previously stated position.
``The president never excluded the possibility that there
would be some U.S. forces here, but he stressed that security
would be under Afghan lead by 2014,'' said the embassy
spokeswoman, Eileen O'Connor. ``The president has always
spoken of a responsible winding down of the efforts here, so
talk of the possibility of some troops still being here post-
2014 is not a change in policy.''
But Mr. Crocker's comments were an explicit acknowledgment
that the post-2014 forces may include combat troops, not just
the trainers and advisers who had been publicly mentioned
before.
His comments came as the administration was engaged in
discussions with the Afghan government on arrangements after
2014. At a conference in Bonn, Germany, last week, President
Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials called for political
and military support for at least another decade.
Referring to the NATO summit meeting in Lisbon last year at
which Western leaders agreed to transfer security
responsibility to Afghan forces by 2014, Mr. Crocker said:
``There is nothing in the Lisbon declaration on 2014 that
precludes an international military presence beyond 2014.
That is to be determined by the parties, who could be
numerous, not just us, as we get closer to that date.''
In June, President Obama announced that American troop
withdrawals would begin the following month, with 10,000 of
the roughly 101,000 American troops then in the country to
leave by Dec. 31, and an additional 23,000 to follow by the
summer of 2012. ``Our troops will continue coming home at a
steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead,''
he said. ``Our mission will change from combat to support. By
2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the
Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.''
Of the first 10,000, 4,000 have left, according to a senior
NATO official. In most of those cases, personnel who had been
scheduled to leave were not replaced, the official said.
``We are on a timeline, as you know,'' Mr. Crocker said.
``Ten thousand out by the end of the year, that is being
met.'' With the additional 23,000 by September 2012, he
added, ``that basically recovers the surge''--the
reinforcements Mr. Obama ordered two years ago.
``Beyond that, there are no decisions,'' he said, adding,
``And as far as I'm aware, there are no formal
recommendations yet.''
[[Page H8907]]
Asked if that meant that the United States would not
necessarily withdraw all combat troops by 2014, Mr. Crocker
said, ``I don't know what we're going to be doing in 2014.''
Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security
Council, said that ``the president will make decisions on the
size and shape of our presence after 2014 at the appropriate
time, based on our interests and in consultation with our
Afghan and NATO partners.''
``We have been clear that any post-2014 presence by the
U.S. would be at the invitation of the Afghan government and
aimed at ensuring that we are able to target terrorists and
support a sovereign Afghan government so that our enemies
can't outlast us,'' she added. ``We have also been very clear
that we do not seek permanent bases in Afghanistan or a long-
term military presence that would be a threat to
Afghanistan's neighbors.''
Military leaders have been quietly pushing to keep as many
troops in the country as they can during the next two years
as a safeguard while responsibility is transferred to Afghan
forces.
On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gen.
John R. Allen, the United States and NATO commander in
Afghanistan, had been promoting the view that the withdrawals
should stop after next year, with the remaining 68,000
soldiers to be kept in Afghanistan through 2013, before cuts
resume in 2014. The article said he had not formally
recommended that course of action, however.
Mr. Crocker noted that General Allen had made it clear that
trainers and advisers would be likely to remain after 2014.
Mr. Crocker said that in some cases ``major weapons systems
will not reach Afghanistan'' until after 2014, so Afghans
will need assistance learning how to operate and maintain
them.
He said he did not expect America's diplomatic presence to
be reduced along with the military pullback. The number of
civilian American government employees in Afghanistan
increased more than threefold from 2009 to 2011, to more than
1,130, from 320.
``The decisions get made in Washington, but it's my
intention that we're going to stay pretty steady,'' he said.
``As the military does draw down, I think our role will even
increase in importance.''
____
[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2011]
Karzai Says Foreigners Are Responsible for Corruption
(By Alissa J. Rubin)
Kabul, Afghanistan.--President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan
blamed foreigners on Sunday for the corruption of Afghan
officials and demanded that the United States extradite the
former chief of the Afghan Central Bank in connection with
the collapse of Kabul Bank, the country's largest financial
institution.
The former governor of the Central Bank, Qadir Fitrat, is
living in Virginia. He fledAfghanistan, saying he feared for
his life after he was involved in making public the massive
fraud at Kabul Bank and removing its senior management.
Neither of the top bank officers nor any of the major
shareholders, who include a brother of Mr. Karzai's and a
brother of the first vice president, Marshal Fahim, have been
prosecuted, although all of them are still in Afghanistan.
Referring to Mr. Fitrat, Mr. Karzai said, ``The government
of the United States should cooperate and hand him over to
us.''
``Bring Fitrat and hand him over to Afghanistan to make
clear who is to blame,'' he said. ``But our hand can't reach
to America.''
Mr. Karzai made the remarks at an event sponsored by the
United Nations to mark International Anti-Corruption Day.
Afghanistan is one of the world's most corrupt countries,
tying for second worst in rankings by Transparency
International, which tracks perceptions of global corruption.
Several Western diplomats and officials working with the
Afghan government said they were disappointed by Mr. Karzai's
speech, in which he appeared to again shift much of the blame
for corruption to foreigners. While foreigners are
unquestionably involved in some of the corruption, they
shared responsibility with the Afghans and were only
peripherally involved in the Kabul Bank debacle.
Mr. Karzai also asked that foreigners who give aid to the
country tell Afghan officials if government officials or
their relatives ask for bribes. Foreign governments have
helped finance anticorruption efforts, but the Afghans have
often squashed high-profile corruption prosecutions of senior
officials. That has been a continuing effort by NATO to comb
through military contracts with Afghan businesses to detect
corruption and terminate contracts in which there has been
manifest abuse. That effort has gone on largely behind the
scenes, so it is difficult to tell if it has had much
success.
Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador, said he believed
that corruption was now being taken more seriously, although
progress was slow and none of the main people responsible for
the Kabul Bank fraud had been prosecuted. The Afghan
government lost more than $850 million in the bank's
collapse. While some of that money has been recovered--more
than expected, according to several officials--the government
will probably have to pay $450 million to $500 million to
cover losses.
``I am told they have a series of indictments that have
been kept in the pending file as they concentrate on asset
recovery,'' Mr. Crocker told reporters on Saturday. ``Look,
it's hardly a perfect world. And it isn't going to be for
quite some time. What I look for is a trajectory: Is the line
going up or down? Very cautiously and very incrementally, I
see it going up. In other words, corruption is being taken
more seriously at higher levels.''
``Does that mean we've turned the corner? We'll see,'' he
added.
Mr. Karzai's focus on Mr. Fitrat and his jab at the United
States are the latest in a series of similar comments he has
made about the fraud at Kabul Bank. In an interview with the
German magazine Der Spiegel last week, he also blamed the
United States for Kabul Bank's troubles, saying, ``The
Americans never told us about this.''
``We believed a certain embassy was trying to create
financial trouble for us,'' he said. ``We felt the whole bank
scam was created by foreign hands.'' Mr. Karzai declined to
be specific, but the American Embassy is the only one that
has deeply consulted with the Afghan banking system.
____________________