Sending More Troops Is Not The Answer

Floor Speech

Sending More Troops Is Not The Answer

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, Matthew Hoh, a former Marine captain, recently resigned his job as U.S. Government reconstruction official in Afghanistan. In his letter of resignation, he criticized the American strategy in Afghanistan. He said the presence of large numbers of U.S. troops is making the insurgency stronger because it makes the Afghan people see America as an occupying power, a power that must be opposed.

Now, before anybody accuses Captain Hoh of being a long-haired hippie peacenik, keep in mind that he fought with distinction in Iraq before serving in Afghanistan. He believes in the American military. He supports it with all his heart.

In fact, he says that ``no nation has ever known a more dedicated military as the U.S. Armed Forces. The performance of our troops,'' he says, ``is unmatched.''

But he also, Madam Speaker, believes that no military force has ever been given such a complex mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan.

Captain Hoh is right. Our troops have been given an impossible job, and now we are seeing the tragic results. Over 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle in just the past 3 months. That accounts for one-fourth of all the casualties we've taken since the war began in October 2001.

Think about it. The war has been going on for 97 months in Afghanistan, and one-fourth of all the casualties have been suffered in just the last 3 months.

Things have gotten so bad, Madam Speaker, in fact, that the casualty rate in Afghanistan is now actually higher than the casualty rate for American troops at the height of the violence in Iraq. And the spike in the casualty rate occurred after the administration sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan in the hope that there is a military solution to the problem.

But relying on military power alone has not done the job, and escalating the war now by sending in tens of thousands more troops won't solve the problem either.

That's why I am calling on President Obama to change our mission in Afghanistan. I have urged him to devote most of our efforts on humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and economic development. These are the elements of ``SMART Security.'' They'll do a much better job of stabilizing Afghanistan than a heavy military footprint.

Without this change in strategy, our troops are likely to face worse, not better, situations. The enemy is learning how to use IEDs more efficiently. Lieutenant Thomas Metz, the director of the Pentagon's effort to reduce IED casualties, has acknowledged that sending more troops to Afghanistan will likely mean more IED deaths and injuries, which include spinal cord damage, traumatic brain injuries, and amputations.

So I urge the administration to move in a new and a different direction for the sake of our country and for the sake of America's troops and their families. And I urge every Member of the House to listen to the words of Matthew Hoh, who wrote the following to a State Department official:

"I trust you understand the sacrifices made by so many thousands of military families whose homes bear the fractures, upheavals, and scars of multiple deployments. Thousands of our men and women have returned home with wounds, some that will never heal. The dead return only in bodily form to be received by families who must be assured that their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost.''

Madam Speaker, the casualty rate in Afghanistan is unacceptable. Continuing the same policies that put our brave troops at risk is unthinkable. That's why it's time to put SMART Security to work in a place where military power alone just isn't the answer.

Source