Afghan Security Forces Killing American Service Members

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, just today we heard reports that two more American servicemembers in Afghanistan were gunned down by the very security forces they are helping to train. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Last week, two Army officers were gunned down inside the Afghan Interior Ministry. Attacks by Afghan soldiers and security forces have accounted for nearly 70 deaths since 2007.

The U.S. military did a report on this phenomenon, referred to as ``Green on Blue'' attacks, and determined that they are turning into a ``growing systemic threat'' to our military personnel in the region. These are not U.S. deaths from combat with Taliban and other insurgent groups, although some of the perpetrators likely hold Taliban sympathies. These attacks are by the very forces our military is trying to train to take control of their own country--a significant component of the Obama administration's military draw-down strategy.

What are American forces to do when they doubt whether they can trust those who wear the uniform of an ally we are spending blood and treasure supporting? These attacks further complicate U.S. strategy.

Mr. Speaker, Congress and the Obama administration need to realize that these things are not going well in Afghanistan, and it has nothing to do with the capabilities of our troops. Not only are Afghan security forces gunning down their American advisers, terrorist and insurgent groups continue to find sanctuary in the tribal wilderness areas of Pakistan.

In January, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate painted a very bleak picture of the war in Afghanistan and the future of U.S. operations in the region. It reflects concerns that I've expressed numerous times to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, especially the importance of understanding Afghan tribal structures and the Pakistani military and intelligence services actively cooperating with two of the mostly deadly terror networks in the region.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker wrote a cable describing the fragile situation in the region. The cable described many of the problems in the region, including terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan where militants continue training to attack U.S. forces. Ryan Crocker has a tremendous history in that region, having been Ambassador to Iraq, and also Ambassador to Pakistan.

Secretary Panetta has stated that U.S. forces are ``working hard with Pakistan to improve the level of cooperation'' so that terrorist groups no longer find safe haven in the country.

While I appreciate the hard work being done by our forces in the region, I'm afraid that the complexity of the evolving situation may necessitate that we take a very close examination of how we're operating.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answers to these extremely complicated and dangerous challenges; but last year Congress gave the Obama administration the ability to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group, an independent panel of five Democrats and five Republicans who love their country more than they love their political party. The Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group would put their expertise to work and offer constructive recommendations to the administration to achieve our mission and to be successful in Afghanistan.

This panel would be modeled after the Iraq Study Group, which was convened during the worst violence in Iraq. The panel was formed only after 3 years of fighting in that country. It was called the Baker-Hamilton Commission. With the Iraq Study Group, it was an amendment that I offered, and I think it made a constructive difference. It was five Republicans and five Democrats. Secretary Gates served on the commission. Secretary Panetta served on the commission, Ed Meese. Fine people, distinguished people, people of integrity and good judgment; and they came up with some good recommendations. I have urged Secretary Panetta repeatedly to embrace this tried and tested model, this time for the Nation's longest war. Five Republicans, five Democrats, all people who are no longer involved in the political process but have understanding and knowledge both from a diplomatic and a military point of that region, both with Afghanistan and with Pakistan.

U.S. forces have been on the ground in Afghanistan for over 10 years now, and it is clear that things are not going well. Given the challenges I have discussed, I find it difficult to understand why Secretary Panetta and President Obama refuse to use the authority it has right now to establish the Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. Such a group already has the support of Congress. This bill passed the United States Congress, and I ask what harm can come from a group of independent experts looking at our missions with fresh eyes, fresh eyes on the target. Secretary Panetta and the administration gets to select the group, the five Republicans and five Democrats, so those who serve on this study will be selected by the administration, and particularly by Secretary Panetta, who I have great respect for.

It's hard for me to understand why Secretary Panetta was willing to sit on the Iraq Study Group, which was going to evaluate a war that had gone on for 3 1/2 years under a Republican administration, but is not willing to do the same thing to have an outside group look at a war that has now been going on for over 10 years.

This would be totally bipartisan. It would be objective. It would be fresh eyes on the target. Ryan Crocker before he was appointed Ambassador to Afghanistan supported this concept, and many very patriotic Americans have, with the idea of how can we be successful in Afghanistan and also in Pakistan.

I do not know what the recommendations of the panel would be. Maybe they will examine the current policy and determine that it is the best possible way to achieve success; but the fact remains that Congress provided the resources and the authority for the Obama administration to conduct an independent review, and they are refusing as of this moment to take action.

Again, it was interesting during the Iraq war, Secretary Rumsfeld was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. General Peter Pace, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. Mr. Steve Hadley, the National Security Adviser, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. They picked two outstanding Americans--probably could not have had finer people--former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and has done a lot of very good things. It was a bipartisan effort.

Again, we had people like Secretary Gates, and we had Attorney General Meese; and they came together with a very constructive proposal. And as many Members may remember, the surge was in the Iraq Study Group. It was on page 73.

So why would Secretary Panetta, who was willing to judge activities for a war gone on for 3 1/2 years during the Bush administration, not be willing to have 10 objective people that he proposes, not that the Congress proposes, not that any partisan group proposes, but that he would propose to bring fresh eyes on the target, to look to see how we can deal with the issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan and do it in a way to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the men and women who are serving so honorably and so well our Nation?

I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that it's a moral issue, too. I believe we owe this--we owe this to the men and women who are serving, and we also owe it to the families.

If other Members care, I would ask you to look at the language and then also write a letter to Leon Panetta. Leon Panetta is a good man. I served with him here in the House. He loves his country, and I think he is working very, very hard. The people serving in the military at the Pentagon are very committed and very capable people, but like anything else, sometimes a fresh approach, or fresh eyes, again, I think would be very good for our country and something that we owe to the men and women who are serving in the military and to their families.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source