For Immediate Release: October 22, 2009 Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Wittman Opening Statement for Hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, today released the following prepared remarks for the subcommittee’s hearing to gather insights and perspectives on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq:
“This session marks the beginning of a new series of hearings, similar to the subcommittee’s effort a couple of years ago regarding Iraq. I applaud the initiative. The subcommittee’s Iraq hearings led to excellent policy discussions, and I expect that this series of hearings will do the same. We need as much focus on the importance of our national effort in Afghanistan as we can muster. The United States has been directly involved in Afghan affairs since we helped the Afghan people overthrow the Taliban eight years ago, and we are just now coming to grips with the strategic costs of completing the task we started.
“The threshold question is, of course, does it matter to the United States what kind of government exists in Afghanistan? Would it substantially harm US interests if the Taliban reasserted their repressive regime and freely collaborated with their brethren in Pakistan? What would be the implications for Pakistan, their stability, and their nuclear weapons?
“I realize that I do not pose these questions in a neutral way, but am nonetheless interested in hearing what our witnesses think. I believe there is some diversity of opinion on the panel.
“We have 68,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan today, performing a variety of missions: fighting and dying on daily patrols with Afghan Army and police units; working with dedicated foreign service and US AID professionals throughout the nation, as well as NATO allies and various Non Governmental Organizations, or NGOs; and training and working with the Afghan national Army and Police, building new, unprecedented professional national institutions.
“As the whole world knows, General McChrystal has proposed a new strategy and asked for more troops to help implement that strategy. Even though he made that request almost two months ago, and even though he noted that the enemy was gaining strength, the President seems to be in no rush to decide.
“No President should send troops to combat without a well considered plan. At the same time, we have been committed to Afghanistan for eight years, are working with trusted NATO allies, and have substantial forces there now. The President has ruled out precipitous withdrawal. It is now time to make the hard choice that US interests in this turbulent region require our best effort and provide the troops the commander needs.
“Although there is little evidence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, sorting out the insurgents is notoriously difficult in the Pashtun belt along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. There is no question that insurgents hostile to US interests are flourishing there, and we should adopt a fully resourced strategy that mitigates the risk to the United States.
“Without question, Afghanistan is a fiendishly tough problem with challenges we did not face in Iraq—desperate poverty with associated illiteracy and shortened life span; no economy to speak of; flourishing drug trade; widespread corruption throughout the society; and an even more complex tribal and ethnic mix. Establishing a society based on law and a legitimate economy will take years, whatever form it may take. Should we make the effort? I think we must. Still, I would like our witnesses’ views on that question. If they believe we should make the effort, then I ask that they tell us what they believe we should do. In short, what would you advise the President to do? There is no more important issue before the President and Congress than this.”