TOPICS:
		Overview
		Afghanistan
		Torture
		Guantanamo

---

Overview

In 2003, the United States made the decision to engage in a preemptive war in Iraq. This decision ignored international consensus that further diplomatic efforts should be made to determine if Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Rather, the U.S. made the decision to engage in a war that has cost countless innocent individuals their lives based on unsubstantiated evidence that was ultimately proven false.

At this time, the war in Iraq has had dramatic human and financial costs. Since the invasion of Iraq, more than 4,300 American servicemembers have died and over 30,000 have been disabled or injured. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is estimated to be over 100,000. It is also estimated that over 2 million Iraqis have left Iraq since the war began, and more than 2.7 million have moved within the country as a result of sectarian violence. In total, over 14 percent of the Iraqi population is displaced. In addition, each day our nation spends millions of dollars to continue our military occupation of Iraq, with military spending in Iraq since 2003 totaling more than $678 billion.

As you are likely aware, I have continually opposed U.S. military action against Iraq and worked to bring the unjustified war in Iraq to an end. When President Bush began making his case for invading Iraq, I was one of the first Members of Congress to declare my opposition. This was months prior to the October 2002 House vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq if the country failed to comply with the United Nations demands. I continue to oppose legislative measures that do not provide for the protection and safe redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.

On February 27, 2009, President Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades would be withdrawn by August 31, 2010, reaffirming his full commitment to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated by the Bush Administration and ratified by Iraq's parliament on November 27, 2008. This will leave a residual presence of 35,000-50,000 U.S. trainers, advisers, and mentors, with these troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011. As part of this drawdown timeline, on June 30, 2009, the U.S. withdrew its combat troops from major cities in Iraq.

Although we are facing a security environment in Iraq vastly improved over the frequency of violence during 2005-2007, a string of high-profile bombings since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraqi cities on June 30 has raised questions about whether the country's security forces are capable of protecting the population. Some have said insurgents are waiting to take advantage of the U.S. drawdown and that a U.S. military presence might be needed beyond 2011 to ensure further political progress and produce a unified, democratic Iraq that can govern and defend itself.

As a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I will continue to support policies to redeploy U.S. troops and continue to call on the Obama Administration to work to establish policies that support and request the sovereignty of the Iraqi people and reestablish America's international credibility.

Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan was authorized when Congress passed and President Bush signed S. Joint Resolution 23 on September 18, 2001. The authorization of use of military force details the mission as follows:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

I voted in favor of authorizing the use of military force for those purposes.

It was apparent, at the time, that al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a safe haven for its terrorist training camps and that the Taliban government in Afghanistan supported al Qaeda’s presence within its borders.

The United States began military operations in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. As a result of those combat operations, the Taliban was driven from power; many al Qaeda operatives were killed and others fled to nearby Pakistan or other more distant countries; national and local democratic elections have been held; a constitution has been written and ratified by the people; and attempts have been made to establish stability and the rule of law in Afghanistan.

After nearly eight years at war, there is evidence that the democratically-elected government in Afghanistan has little control outside the city of Kabul. Many parts of the country are un-governed or lawless, with war lords (some of whom are sympathetic to the Taliban) controlling tribal territories. A violent insurgency is growing and the Taliban is regaining strength. Opium production is increasing significantly. Most of the al Qaeda terrorists whom we seek to kill or capture are no longer present in Afghanistan.

I am deeply concerned that our brave men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan no longer have a clear mission. They are often expected to perform functions not authorized in the September 18, 2001 authorization of military force. As a result, the Afghan people are increasingly viewing U.S. and allied troops as occupying forces, rather than liberating forces.

In the absence of clear signals from the U.S. that we have a new plan and an exit strategy, I believe that Afghan resistance to our presence will grow, violence will increase and our efforts to produce stability will be thwarted.

I agree with President Obama that we cannot solve problems in Afghanistan through military means alone. We must promote the rule of law, agriculture reform and economic development, educational opportunities for boys and girls, and popular support for democratic institutions and civil society. Most of these activities are properly and more effectively carried out by civilian organizations, with military support assigned to assure their security.

Unfortunately, the relevant legislative measures recently considered by Congress do not reflect these needed policy changes. Indeed, I believe they lead us in a dangerous direction. Rather than announcing a new plan and exit strategy in Afghanistan, recent measures like the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647), and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3326), support an increase in troop deployment to Afghanistan, place paltry emphasis on political, diplomatic and development initiatives, ignore the clear fact of "mission creep," and contain no exit strategy. For that reason, I voted against all three measures as they came to the House floor for consideration. I intend my opposition to send a strong signal to this new Administration that we demand a new plan and an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, I remain committed to keeping America and American interests abroad safe from acts of terrorism. I stand by my vote to authorize the use of military force to pursue al Qaeda and other violent extremists who threaten our safety and security. I will continue to call upon the President to articulate a new plan and a clear exit strategy in Afghanistan.

Torture

I am strongly opposed to the use of torture on prisoners, in any situation, and by any agent. Torture is sometimes used by a captor in order to extract information from the prisoner. Such information is very unreliable, as the prisoner may say anything in order to make the torture stop. Serious allegations have been made that the United States has used a torture tactic known as “waterboarding,” or pouring water over a prisoner’s face to induce fear of suffocation. Additional allegations have been made that the U.S. has used secret prisons, combined with a technique known as “extraordinary rendition” to transfer suspects to nations where torture is practiced. Some have dubbed this practice “outsourcing torture.” Our laws are clear: Americans are prohibited from engaging in torture of prisoners. These practices are grossly inhumane and are in direct contradiction with basic human rights.

Guantanamo

I believe that the federal government should close facilities like Guantanamo Bay and reinstate the habeas corpus rights of detainees, so that individuals are able to seek relief from unlawful detention. Detention facilities like Guantanamo Bay have become a liability in the war on terror, as reports of torture, the indefinite detention of potentially innocent individuals, and international objections to the treatment of detainees has hurt our international credibility. The closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay would promote international human rights and represent the first positive step in re-establishing America's international reputation.

IN-DEPTH: Press Releases | Legislation | Links

BACK TO TOP