On the recordJuly 1, 2010
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and pursuant to it will vote in strong support of the domestic funding portion of the supplemental appropriation, but in reluctant acceptance of the war funding, which appropriates some $37 billion to our efforts in Afghanistan, most of it going to the troop surge that President Obama announced in December of last year. Concern about the well-being of our troops makes its difficult to vote against supplemental war funding once the troops that funding is meant to support have already been deployed. While a ``no'' vote on the war supplemental has some appeal as a way of forcing reevaluation of our current strategy, denying those funds could jeopardize the safety of our troops. For me, that leaves little real choice in the matter. However, that does not mean I am ready to acquiesce in a policy that appears increasingly open-ended, while its cost in lives and resources continues to mount. I am highly skeptical that an extra year and 30,000 additional troops will bring stability and effective governance in a country that for 30 years has seen nothing but conflict and for centuries has been known as the graveyard of empires. It is hard to imagine that the Karzai government will rid itself of corruption and become a reliable partner or that the Afghan forces will acquire a sustainable level of competency any time soon. The elusive ``turning point'' our policy seeks to achieve seems ever farther away.…





