In doing so, he contradicts the recommendation of several top military commanders, who want an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. President Obama currently is deliberating over his Afghan war strategy.
Byrd, who was an early opponent of the Iraq
war, accused the U.S.
military of losing its way in Afghanistan,
focusing on nation-building instead of the al Qaeda terror network.
“Some in Congress talk about limiting the number of
additional troops until we ‘surge to train’ more Afghan defense forces. That sounds a lot like fence straddling to
me,” Byrd said.
“I suggest that we might better refocus our efforts on al
Qaeda and reduce U.S.
participation in nation building in Afghanistan.”
Byrd said he was pleased to hear President Obama express
skepticism about sending more troops into Afghanistan, but Byrd said he was concerned Congress and the President may succumb to
pressure to send more troops there.
Click on the player above to hear the audio of his full
speech.
Here is the full text of Byrd’s speech:
“Mr. President, few subjects weigh more heavily upon a
president than the decision to send our sons and daughters to war. Such a commitment demands the clearest of
clear thinking, including a thoroughly dispassionate assessment of goals,
risks, and strategies. This is
difficult terrain for any American President, especially when faced with
conflicting views from advisors, Congress, and the American public.”
“I have become deeply concerned that in the eight years
since the September 11 attacks, the reason for the U.S.
military mission in Afghanistan
has become lost, consumed in some broader scheme of nation-building which has
clouded our purpose and obscure our reasoning.”
“General McChrystal, our current military commander in Afghanistan,
has requested 30,000-40,000 additional American troops to bolster the more than
65,000 American troops already there. I
am not clear as to his reasons and I have many, many questions. What does General McChrystal actually aim to
achieve?”
“So I am compelled to ask: does it really, really take 100,000 U.S.
troops to find Osama bin Laden? If al
Qaeda has moved to Pakistan
what will these troops in Afghanistan
add to the effort to defeat al Qaeda? What is really meant by the term defeat in the parlance of conventional
military aims when facing a shadowy global terrorist network?
"And, what of this number 100,000? Does the number of 100,000 troops include
support personnel? Does it include
government civilians? Does it include
defense and security contractors? How
many contractors are already there in Afghanistan? How much more will all this cost? How much in dollars; how much in terms of
American blood? Will the international community step up to the plate and bear
a greater share of the burden?”
“Some in Congress talk about limiting the number of
additional troops until we ‘surge to train’ more Afghan defense forces. That sounds a lot like fence straddling to
me. I suggest that we might better
refocus our efforts on al Qaeda and reduce U.S.
participation in nation building in Afghanistan. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of
the current Afghan government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan
troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better-armed hostile
force? There ain’t no guarantee. The
lengthy presence of foreign troops in a sovereign country almost always creates
resentment and resistance among the native population.”
“I am relieved to hear President Obama acknowledge mission
creep and I am pleased to hear the President express skepticism about sending
more troops into Afghanistan
unless needed to achieve our primary goal of disrupting al Qaeda. I remain concerned that Congress may yet succumb
to military and international agendas.
"General Petraeus and General McChrystal both seem to have bought into
the nation-building mission. By
supporting a nationwide counterinsurgency and nation-building strategy, I
believe they have certainly lost sight of America’s
primary strategic objective - - namely to disrupt and de-fang al Qaeda and
protect the American people from future attack.”
“President Obama and the Congress must reassess and refocus
on our original and most important objective – namely, emasculating a terrorist
network that has proved its ability to inflict harm on the United
States. If more troops are required to support an international mission in Afghanistan,
then the international community should step up and provide the additional
forces and funding. The United
States is already supplying a
disproportionate number of combat assets for that purpose.”