Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Miller Opening Statement for Hearing on Counterterrorism within the Afghan Counterinsurgency
Washington, D.C.—The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities today turned its attention to the ongoing debate about the appropriate strategy to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan. Members heard testimony from expert witnesses on the merits of utilizing counter-terrorism operations within a counterinsurgency strategy. The subcommittee’s Ranking Member, U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), released the following prepared remarks for the hearing:
“Today this subcommittee will receive testimony regarding counter-terrorism operations to help us better understand the challenges our forces face in the Afghan insurgency. Having recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan over Columbus Day weekend, I can say that today’s hearing comes at a pivotal moment. Nearly two months ago, General Stanley McChrystal provided the President with his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, and, as we have all read in the press, has deemed the situation ‘serious.’ While General McChrystal acknowledges the very difficult task he faces in bringing security to Afghanistan and its people, he does not view the situation, however, as a lost cause.
“The importance of Afghanistan, not only to regional security but also to the security of our homeland, is clear. From the safe haven the Taliban regime had extended it over eight years ago, Al Qaeda planned the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country. From that moment forward, we have sought to deny Al Qaeda, and other such likeminded groups, safe havens from which to operate. And Al Qaeda no longer enjoys a safe haven within Afghanistan.
“Since the release of General McChrystal’s assessment, however, the future strategy for Afghanistan has been vigorously debated with pundits from all sides pushing competing views: from increased troop levels, as General McChrystal has requested of the President, to a sole focus on counterterrorism, meaning significant troop reductions and a focus on high-end special operations activities. The challenge now is to determine what is achievable and how we can make progress against an insurgency that threatens the stability of Afghanistan and that potentially could offer Al Qaeda a safe haven once again.
“The challenge is significant and complex. In Afghanistan, we have a population that longs for security and stability, as well as an effective government free of corruption. However, internal and external forces – among them, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani network—actively seek to undermine that vision as they each seek to realize their groups’ violent goals. And while many raise questions about the Karzai government, I think we must look beyond the recent Afghan elections and upcoming presidential election runoff to ask how our strategy changes whether Karzai remains, Abdullah is voted in, or a coalition government is formed. Ultimately, we are battling to deny operating space to Al Qaeda and other violent groups, and our strategy cannot forget that an insurgent victory or control of key areas could return Afghanistan to chaos and provide a safe haven once again if it is not contained.
“In seeking to deny a safe haven for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we must also turn our gaze to Pakistan, as the fate of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to that of its neighbor to the East through centuries-old tribal and familial connections. Pakistan itself has felt the sting of Al Qaeda and associated militant organizations through numerous bombings, assassinations, and the recent attack on the military’s General Headquarters base in Rawalpindi. So, a discussion on a strategy for Afghanistan must include consideration of the Pakistan piece of the equation for the strategy to be comprehensive.
“General McChrystal has presented a comprehensive assessment of the situation. We have, in Stan McChrystal, a commander who is not only an expert in counterinsurgency, but also in counterterrorism. He has led our premier forces in the counterterrorism mission, yet he is the one recommending an increased troop presence, a focus on counterinsurgency, a reorientation to protecting population centers, a reorganization of the NATO ISAF structure, and strategic engagement with the Afghan population and the region. The danger now, as I see it, is that we will be tempted to pursue political expediency in lieu of actual leadership—leadership that is very much needed at this pivotal moment. The administration may seek to be a more accommodating partner, open to dialogue and consensus, but this does not equate to an abdication of responsibility for leadership. If we waiver in our approach, no one else in the international community will stand up.
“Now, counterinsurgency is not an easy mission, and counterterrorism operations certainly have an important role in an effective counterinsurgency strategy. But, we cannot put forward a cookie cutter approach, imposing the same counterinsurgency strategy used in one area to a different one. So, today’s hearing will do much to put General McChrystal’s assessment into context and to help the member’s understand how U.S. and international resources, especially counterterrorism capabilities, can best be used in a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy to meet the challenges in Afghanistan and the region.
“These insights will prove valuable beyond our consideration of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the globe is pockmarked with instability and unrest that could flare into violent conflict or turn governed spaces into safe havens for violent groups such as Al Qaeda. And in seeking to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven, we must not forget that a successful counterinsurgency strategy can offer a longer-lasting solution than a never-ending man hunting strategy.”