Harman participates in FPI Conference on Afghanistan

Washington, D.C. -- Today, Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) participated in the Foreign Policy Initiative's Conference on Afghanistan with Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.  Harman's prepared remarks are below:     

• It’s nice to be sharing the stage again with John McHugh.  We are classmates (both elected in 1992), we served together for six years on the Armed Services Committee, and we worked well together during my eight years on the Intelligence Committee. 

• And as you just heard, he is a real student of the issues and the very troubled region we’re here today to discuss.

• I appreciate Dan Senor’s invitation to speak to you.  I’ve been to the Middle East region more than 20 times since I was elected in 1992 – including Afghanistan and the FATA in 2004 – and will be going there again soon. 

• As some of the advance online press suggested, The Foreign Policy Initiative is the newest neo-con group in town and I’m treading into “the lion’s den” here. 

• That’s OK – when there’s a tough job to do just ask a woman to do it…

• Some believe the debate on Afghanistan is breaking down into two partisan camps.  Some Republicans say that President Bush’s muscular approach in Iraq worked and it should be used again in Afghanistan – and if that approach fails to call it President Obama’s war.

• Some Democrats argue that the British and Soviets failed, and Afghanistan will become a Vietnam-like quagmire for the US, too.

• Not surprisingly, I disagree with both views.  So does President Obama, whose views are close to mine.

• I think we need to do three things in Afghanistan and the region:

a. Limit the objective:  no sanctuary for our adversaries, but add a context. 
The Afghan public may be mostly illiterate, but they recognize that their central government is tone-deaf.  It has little influence outside of Kabul and is highly corrupt.
Governance is the key to success – offering the people an alternative and getting their buy-in. 

b. US strategy must be population-focused, not “enemy”-focused.  Basic law and order do not exist in most of Afghanistan, so village leadership, warlords, or Taliban-style justice have filled the gap.

The current US practice of paying off and otherwise persuading warlords to support our military as the chief method for combating the Taliban is having dangerous side effects – and the corruption and abuses fueled by US funds breed resentment by regular Afghans and distrust of their government.  We need to invest in helping Afghan-style PRTs succeed.

c. “It takes a region” and an engaged international community to root out the Taliban and stabilize the area.  Richard Holbrooke is right to call the region Af/Pak, and to include India.  The Conference on Afghanistan that begins in The Hague today will be a test of NATO, of President Obama’s leadership, of Iran…of the 73 nations invited, I understand only Uzbekistan declined to participate.

• And, by the way, I agree with Doug Feith, who wrote in yesterday’s New York Times that our efforts need to be accompanied by a communications strategy for the region. 

• How ironic that those we oppose, terrorists who would turn large parts of the world into a 17th century caliphate, make far better use of all forms of 21st century media than we do.

• President Obama is also correctly redefining the objective of our military mission in Afghanistan with a more nuanced, two-pronged strategy – one that isn’t “bullets or bombs alone.” 

• But earning the trust of the Afghan people is the first objective in this new strategy.  And this is closely tied to the theme of focusing on governance.  Reforming the police, cleaning up the court system and targeting corruption are critical to restoring public confidence in the central government.

• That, in combination with an influx in military aid and the 4,000 troops we will send to serve as trainers to the Afghan National Police, will improve the ability to maintain law and order and will instill even more public confidence.

• NATO will supplement this force and add other aid.

• The final goal of this strategy is critical – ridding the Afghan economy from a reliance on narcotics that fuels the insurgency and actually undermines long-term economic opportunity. 

• The whole region – including Iran – is threatened by the drug trade.

• Richard Holbrooke’s agricultural assistance initiative is the kind of program that can work, but the safe transit of goods must be guaranteed.

• This strategy provides the tools for the whole Af/Pak region ultimately to support itself and reverse gains made in recent years by insurgents.

• The Pakistan dimension of this strategy is nuanced, and explicitly acknowledges the constraints we face. 

• Brutal attacks yesterday signal that basic law and order are absent there.

• I for one think we will not get Pakistan right until we get access to AQ Khan – the revered father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb – and understand whether his proliferation network was ever fully wrapped up and what his post-house arrest activities consist of.

• The President also recognizes the role that other nations in this region play in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan – such as India, Russia and China.

• As President Obama said last Friday, the effort in Afghanistan has been “under resourced” for far too long. 

• The Bush Administration took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan – and it was too focused on rooting out terrorist strongholds instead of a broader strategy that earns the support of the Afghan (and American) people.

• President Obama realizes that getting Afghanistan and Pakistan right will require a significant financial commitment.  It will also require an extensive political commitment.

• What this cannot become is an open-ended American commitment in Afghanistan.  The American people will not tolerate that. 

• While I believe the President’s Af/Pak review was a careful process that included all the right people, if there’s one thing that concerns me it is the lack of clear metrics in his plan – yardsticks, if you will – which makes measuring our progress more difficult and could undermine public support over time.

• Accountability is critical, and Congress must ensure that the President’s plan is working.

• Still others, skeptics like Les Gelb, believe both the Bush and Obama plans put us on the wrong path and argue instead that the US should support international, multilateral institutions a la Truman and Eisenhower to contain problems in Af/Pak.

• How will this all end?  The truth is that we don’t know.  But I believe President Obama’s plan puts us on firmer, higher ground – with a real chance to beat back the Taliban for a second time, to put the Afghan people on the path to corruption-reduced self-governance, and to help the Pakistani government achieve stability and operate under the rule of law.

• Thank you.  I look forward to the Q&A.

###