General Petraeus was in Washington this week to testify before the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. And while his intent was to endorse the July 2011 Afghanistan redeployment date set by the Commander in Chief, it was not the kind of clear, unambiguous statement that inspires very much confidence. According to an editorial in today's Washington Post, the General describes next July as 'the point at which a process begins to transition security tasks to Afghan forces at a rate to be determined by conditions at the time.' With all due respect, Madam Speaker, could there be any more qualifiers and escape hatches in that sentence? The American people, who have 1,000 fewer fellow citizens and 278 billion fewer dollars than they did when this war began, aren't looking for the beginning of a process. They're looking for an end to this, an end to this miserable war. Shouldn't we be at the end or at least in the middle of the process of transitioning security tasks to Afghanistan forces? Shouldn't the beginning of the process have come at some point over the last 8½ years that we've been fighting this war? My concern, Madam Speaker, is that statements like this one are laying the predicate for an extension of President Obama's deadline, which is exactly the wrong lesson and the wrong approach.
Editor's note · Context
Woolsey criticizes General Petraeus's ambiguous statements on the Afghanistan redeployment timeline.
Share
More from Lynn C. Woolsey
Since the House last convened in late September, about 30 more Americans have given their lives in the war in Afghanistan. The total number of fatalities has now passed 2,000. And as of October 7, we've been at war in Afghanistan for a…
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be postponed. Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Waters The Acting CHAIR. It…
I thank the gentleman for leading this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were debating work requirements under the TANF program. Well, after we've all listed the issues that the Republicans have refused to address in this Congress…
Each year, 74 electrical workers covered under this rule are killed on the job. Another 444 are severely injured. OSHA is authorized to regulate a hazard when the risk of fatality is more than 1 in a 1,000. The fatality rate for workers…





