WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Kit Bond, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today spoke on the Senate floor to call for General McChrystal to testify before Congress.  Bond stressed that the recent erosion of support for our efforts in Afghanistan in the Administration and among some in Congress makes it necessary to hear testimony from the top commander on the ground.  

 

The transcript of Bond’s remarks on the Senate floor, as-prepared, is below:

(Mr./Ma’dam) President, I rise today to call for the testimony before Congress of our top military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.  Congress needs to hear directly, and as soon as possible, from General McChrystal to ensure that political motivations here in Washington do not override the vital needs of our commanders and our troops on the ground.  

 

Ordinarily, I do not like the idea of calling a General away from his duties in theatre, but unfortunately, in the often surreal world of Washington politics, all of the hard work by our military and intelligence professionals on the battlefield of Afghanistan can be undone very quickly.  

 

Unfortunately, the latest verbal wavering by the Administration and some of my colleagues in Congress could do just that.

 

Last November, when I sent my report, the Roadmap to Success in South Asia, to then-President-elect Obama and his national security team, I outlined the importance of messaging to our overall success in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

For too long, the United States has flailed about with an uncoordinated communications plan—in other words, we have been off message.

 

Unfortunately, the enemy has continued to hone its’ own message.  Radical Islamic terrorists have staged suicide attacks for maximum publicity, propagandized their message on the internet, and convinced their fellow terrorists-at-arms that they will defeat the international community.

 

Negative and indecisive comments by the President, broadcast worldwide, have now given the enemy a big win in the public information battle.

 

On CNN, the President questioned, “are we pursuing the right strategy?”

 

On NBC’s Meet the Press, the President’s comments were even more disturbing, signaling a complete lack of confidence in his early strategy. 

 

The President said:  “If an expanded counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan contributes to the goal of defeating al-Qaeda, then we'll move forward.  But, if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or . . . sending a message that America is here for the duration.”

 

Comments like these call into doubt America’s commitment to Afghanistan and have given hope to the terrorists—hope that America’s resolve is not real, and that they only need to wait us out to win the war. 

 

Comments like these send the people of Afghanistan the message that we are leaving soon—the implied message is that you better work with the Taliban and al Qaeda. 

 

This is a public diplomacy bonanza for our terrorist enemies.

 

At the same time, these comments have done a great disservice to our men and women serving in harm’s way.  These heroes need their country’s unwavering support, not vacillation because of political pressures.   

President Obama’s recent comments present a stark and dangerous contrast to his earlier resolve—resolve that I applauded and supported.  And when President Obama commissioned General McChrystal’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, I believed that he was genuinely interested in receiving the General’s expert, on-the-ground perspective and his informed opinion of what strategic and tactical changes would be required for success. 

 

Unfortunately, it now appears that the President has developed a sudden case of buyer’s remorse.  It seems increasingly clear to me that the Obama Administration is inclined to reject the counter-insurgency strategy recently recommended by General McChrystal, and endorsed by the head of the U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.

 

 In a bewildering twist, this is the same counter-insurgency strategy the President, himself, endorsed just this past March.  Now, I have been a strong and vocal supporter of the Administration’s new strategy in Afghanistan.  So I was particularly disappointed by the President’s suggestion this past Sunday that he is reconsidering the American commitment to the war in Afghanistan.

 

I am also deeply disturbed by press reports that Defense Secretary Gates will delay sending General McChrystal’s troop request to the White House because the White House is not ready to consider it.  Given the President’s resolve this past spring, I am somewhat puzzled by the strange treatment of General McChrystal’s assessment and troop request.  Unnecessary delay is not our friend in this war.   

 

The clearest reason for this delay seems to be that the President is considering not granting General McChrystal’s request.  Instead, we are now hearing that he will instead push for a more aggressive covert war against al Qaida leadership in Pakistan.  

 

We all want to eliminate the al Qaida leadership that plotted and planned the attacks that claimed more than 3,000 American lives on September 11^th.

 

And depending on the details, more aggressive action in Pakistan may be a good thing, but such action should be in addition to, not as a substitute for, giving our troops in Afghanistan all of the resources they need to succeed. 

 

While denying al Qaeda and Taliban militants sanctuary in the border regions of Pakistan is critical, a counter-terrorism-only approach focusing on one part of this regional conflict will ultimately hand victory to the world’s most violent and feared terrorists.

 

This type of counter-terrorism-only approach failed us in Iraq, and has failed us in Afghanistan for the last 7 years.

 

I have consistently called for—and President Obama had promised—a comprehensive, counter-insurgency strategy designed to meet a set of clearly defined goals for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.  The Obama Administration has rightly characterized the problem as involving both of these two countries.  Yet, right now, we have a plan only for one country.

 

I am not suggesting that it is General McChrystal’s job to set that wider strategy.  As directed by the President, and by our NATO allies whom he represents as commander of ISAF, the General has laid out a good strategy for success in Afghanistan and that strategy includes a request for more boots on the ground.  I understand that there is a lot of hand-wringing in Washington right now over Afghanistan.  We saw the same reaction over sending more troops into Iraq two years ago.  The political courage shown by the White House and Congress back then proved to be successful.  Today, we must marshal the same courage and give General McChrystal what he needs to get the job done.

 

Amid the reports of wavering and hand-wringing, an important question comes to mind:  what has changed?  During the campaign and after his Inauguration, the President has spoken repeatedly about the importance of winning the war in Afghanistan. 

 

For example, on March 27, 2009, when he rolled out his comprehensive new approach for Afghanistan and Pakistan, the President declared that:

 

[t]o succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.  Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy.  Our civilians have made great sacrifices.  Our allies have borne a heavy burden.  Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future.  But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq.  Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

 

I was heartened by these words.  I agreed with the President on the need for a fully resourced counter-insurgency campaign and a solid commitment to ensure the security of the Afghan people and our own vital interests.  I applauded his recognition of the importance of winning this war when he told our veterans this past August  

 

[t]hose who attacked America on 9-11 are plotting to do so again.  If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.

 

But our troops in the field have now been waiting over 6 months for the President to follow through on his promises.  As General McChrystal’s recently leaked assessment points out, time is of the essence, and we cannot afford more stalling by the Administration on this vital national security issue.  The General said the next 9 to 12 months are critical—that is why we need a decision now.

 

I call on the President to heed his own words from this past weekend—let’s ignore the politics of the moment and finish the job in Afghanistan. 

I recognize that we have not yet seen any official numbers associated with General McChrystal’s troop request, but I am very encouraged by the General’s emphasis on putting more of an “Afghan face” on operations.  I believe our ultimate success depends on our ability to hand responsibility for security over to the Afghans. 

 

I was also gratified to see the report’s strong emphasis on the importance of “smart power” to achieving success.  While the assessment does not actually use that term, the concept is woven into the core of the report.  General McChrystal and others have been clear that traditional kinetic military efforts alone will not achieve the success we need.  Success will be attainable only if we maximize the ability of non-military agencies of the U.S. government to work through Afghan institutions to achieve stability, reconstruction, and the rule of law.  

 

In the McChrystal report the Afghan Defense Minister rejected the popular myth that Afghanistan is a “graveyard of empires” and we are destined to fail there.  I couldn’t agree more.  As General McChrystal affirmed in his report, “while the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”  The Obama Administration and Congress must each do their parts to give our troops the resources and time they need to make that success a reality. 

 

Let’s not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan, just because a few pundits are peddling political pessimism in Washington.  All the experts, including General McChrystal, agree that we need a properly resourced counter-insurgency strategy, and we need it now.  It is time to listen to our commanders on the ground, not the ever-changing political winds whispering defeat in Washington.

 

I yield the floor.

                                                                        ###