Afghanistan : At U.S. Institute of Peace, Levin discusses Afghanistan, fight against ISIS United States should continue in this effort with or without a vote on a resolution to authorize it Senator Carl Levin Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, delivered remarks on his optimism about the future of Afghanistan and on why he believes Congress should give its support to military efforts to combat ISIS. Video of his remarks and a question-and-answer session moderated by USIP Chairman Stephen H. Hadley is available on the organization’s website. Text of Levin’s remarks, as prepared for delivery: I am honored to be here at USIP as it marks its 30th birthday this week. I was a cosponsor of the Sparky Matsunaga’s legislation establishing the Institute, which, significantly, and appropriately, was part of the Defense authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985. Sparky himself believed that wisdom and knowledge were essential to peace – he famously said, “We need more owls, not more hawks or doves.” The Institute has worked hard to find the wisdom that contributes to peace. I recently saw firsthand one example of the value of your work; last April, the Institute’s staff in Kabul hosted briefings for me, where I heard from civil society leaders, women, young people and human rights activists. Today I want to focus today on the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan, and the wisdom that has aided us in that pursuit. I am hopeful about Afghanistan’s future because of the progress we have helped bring about over the last several years. And I am hopeful because of the recent peaceful and democratic transition of power, a first in Afghanistan’s long history. That transition offers increased reason for optimism that we have an essential ingredient for success in place there, perhaps the essential ingredient – a unity government of Afghans whose own goals are in harmony with our goal of a free, peaceful and unified Afghanistan with strong security forces and honest governance. Afghanistan faces immense challenges, from Taliban terror to corruption to poverty to ethnic and political tension. But the progress that the country has made is also immense. Too many people forget what Afghanistan was like before coalition intervention in 2001. Even in major cities, access to food, clean water, and employment was limited. Women were barred from attending school, working outside the home, or even leaving their houses unless accompanied by a male relative. Medieval rules were enforced by armed thugs using public executions and floggings. Television, music, and the internet were banned. Today, by contrast, there is vibrancy in Afghan society. In just one decade, life expectancy in Afghanistan has increased by 22 years and child mortality has decreased by 62%. Under the Taliban there were just 900,000 students in school, all boys. Now, student enrollment is more than 8 million, including about 3 million girls. In 2001, Afghanistan had 20,000 teachers, all male; today, there are 200,000 teachers, including 60,000 women. Universities are sprouting up, including an impressive and inspiring American University in Kabul. The Afghan security forces have exceeded our military commanders’ expectations, successfully responding to Taliban attacks and safeguarding two rounds of elections. The Taliban threatened to prevent the peaceful transition of power in Afghanistan, but failed spectacularly. The Afghan people support their security forces, now about 350,000 troops strong, and I have always believed that our principal mission in Afghanistan is to help establish Afghan forces so they can protect their people and their hopes for a free nation. That is the Taliban’s worst nightmare. On one of my early trips to Afghanistan, when I asked a group of village elders whether they wanted us there, their spokesman answered: “Stay until you have trained our army, and then leave, and someday we will welcome you back as guests.” Afghans now have hope for better governance as well, as President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah have resolved their differences over the election and formed a unity government. We have seen in Iraq, where the Maliki regime’s pursuit of a sectarian agenda left the nation vulnerable to the poison of ISIS, that when leaders choose narrow political aims over the common good of their people, they can do immense harm. The fact that the new Afghan government’s first official acts included the signing of security agreements with the United States and NATO and the reopening of an investigation of the Kabul Bank scandal gives the Afghan people reason to hope that the nation’s new leaders are more interested in building Afghanistan’s future than in pursuing partisan or sectarian or corrupt agendas. The progress we and our Afghan allies have achieved in Afghanistan has been built on adherence to a number of important principles. First is the value of broad international support for our military efforts. Second is the value of training local forces willing and able to defend their own people. Third is the value of pressing for unified, inclusive governance – that is, the value of a government worth fighting for. Fourth is the value of setting limits on our own military involvement in order to incentivize the development of domestic military and government institutions able to stand on their own. While public opinion polls show the Afghan people think we have accomplished much and are glad we came, polls in the United States show that Americans believe our involvement in Afghanistan has failed. Former Secretary Gates has made the pungent point that the Afghan war is the first he’s experienced that looks better from close-up than at a distance. I believe that the American public’s failure to understand what we have accomplished in Afghanistan is due, in large part, to the constant, almost totally negative portrayal of events in Afghanistan in the American press. The press understandably reports on negative events. A Taliban truck bomb in Kabul does make a more dramatic story than a million girls going to school. But it would be tragic if this negative focus deprived the American people, our men and women in uniform, and their families of the sense of accomplishment they deserve to feel about our effort in Afghanistan. And the relentless negative focus of the press could have a serious negative effect on Afghanistan’s future. That’s because while Afghanistan’s gains have been impressive, they remain reversible. Afghans continue to fear that the United States will abandon them, as they believe we did after the Soviets left in the early 1990s. The Afghans have assumed responsibility for their own security and for their own political affairs, but they continue to depend on international funding, training, and institution-building, in particular for sustaining the Afghan Army and police. The economic life of the country is far more vibrant than it was under the Taliban, but it will take years for the Afghans to develop a sustainable economy, and they won’t be able to do it without substantial economic assistance. If the public continues to believe that Afghanistan is a lost cause, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Simply put, if we don’t understand what we and our coalition partners have gained in Afghanistan, we risk losing it. We have accomplished much along with our Afghan and coalition allies in bringing more security and stability to that country and preventing it from once again serving as a safe haven for terrorists who would attack us. While much remains to be done, but I believe if the Afghan people remain united, and if we remain constant in our support of them, Afghanistan will take its place among the achievements of which our nation can be proud. Before we move on to questions, I want to touch briefly on a question Congress will face when it meets after the elections: should we vote to authorize the President to use military force against ISIS? In my view, the answer is clear: We should. The poisonous ideology of ISIS is hostile not only to the region but to the world, and there is a real risk that the area that it controls could become a training ground and launching pad for future attacks against the United States and our friends and allies. ISIS is terrorizing the Iraqi and Syrian people, enslaving and slaughtering, persecuting religious minorities, and attacking schools, hospitals and cultural sites. But if the fight against ISIS is to succeed, it must be visibly an Iraqi and Syrian fight, an Arab and Muslim fight against an internal cancer, and not be perceived as principally a western fight. Though some have sought to minimize the contributions of Arab and Muslim nations in the battle against ISIS, the open, public participation of those countries is hopefully sending a powerful political signal, to their populations and to the world. We have a unique opportunity at this crucial moment in history to bring the world together to confront a common, violent enemy. Our role should be to help bring together a broad coalition in support of a unified Iraq and moderate Syrian opposition, by training and equipping them for the fight, and – as a part of a broad coalition, with the strong, visible support of Arab and Muslim countries – by providing air power that the Iraqis and Syrians lack. Boots on the ground are needed, but they need to be Iraqi and Syrian boots. I also believe we should seek to establish a delineated buffer zone along the Turkish border to protect civilians, secured by Turkish boots on the ground and protected by a coalition no-fly zone. So, yes, Congress should vote to support the President in this effort because it will be destructive to our drive to unite the world against ISIS if Congress and the President appear disunited. We should vote because President Obama has organized a broad coalition that includes, critically, Arab and Muslim nations who are public and open participants. I do disagree with those who argue that the President cannot act without an express authorization to use military force. The President has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to act where necessary to defend the United States. Indeed, presidents have used military force overseas on dozens of occasions, and have received congressional authorization only a handful of times. In the last 25 years, we have engaged in air campaigns to enforce a no-fly zone in Iraq, to end the bloodshed in Bosnia, to bring about a Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo, and to protect civilians from Qadaffi in Libya – all without congressional authorization. Congressional support would strengthen the international fight against ISIS, but the United States should continue in this effort with or without a vote on a resolution to authorize it.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:29:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015