On the recordMarch 17, 2011
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about one point. That part of the majority party that is urging the same position I am on this resolution, which is a ``no'' vote, has made the argument a number of times that when you're dealing with fundamental issues of national security, you spend money, even under difficult times, a point that I have no disagreement with. And they argue the issue of what the alternatives will be and the potential for providing new safe havens for terrorists or more safe havens for terrorists or a return of Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists if we pass this resolution, and I don't disagree with that point. What I find upsetting about the majority's position is their denial of the fundamental point. They quote General Petraeus for every position that they find philosophically and factually satisfying and ignore General Petraeus and Secretary Gates on the fundamental concept of how we hope to change the course of what is happening in Afghanistan. Because if we don't change it, then we have to come and address the fundamental question of what we're doing there through a counterinsurgency strategy. So we talk about clear and hold and build. And it is the military's job to clear and, for a time, to hold, but build is fundamentally a civilian program.…
Source
govinfo.gov




