Madam Speaker, the White House is figuring how they should treat Afghanistan, what to do about Afghanistan. As they review the situation, they must be asking themselves a lot of questions: Should our strategy be counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? Should we send in 40,000 more troops, or 20,000 more troops, or should we send in any more at all? And is the Taliban really a threat to our national security?

Meanwhile, the American people are asking the most important question of all: Is the war a war of necessity? And most Americans are coming to the conclusion that it is not. And I agree with them.

Our military presence in Afghanistan is not necessary because al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11, simply isn't in Afghanistan anymore. In fact, it's estimated that only about 100 al Qaeda fighters remain in the country. Our military presence isn't necessary because it will lead us into another foreign quagmire. Escalating the war will require massive numbers of troops. They will be fighting an endless war with many casualties, no exit strategy at this point, and the American people will not put up with that.

This war is not necessary because it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That's the money we need to put the American people back to work, Madam Speaker, and to get our economy back on track. And finally, this war is not necessary because we have better alternatives.

First and foremost, these alternatives include smart security. Smoking out and stopping the violent extremists in Afghanistan requires the effective surgical tool of smart security, not the blunt instrument of massive military occupancy. Smart security calls for strengthening our intelligence and surveillance capabilities. That's absolutely essential because the best way to stop the extremists in Afghanistan is to penetrate and disrupt their networks.

Smart security calls for improvements in civilian policing. A well-trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it's right there in the communities where the extremists are. Smart security calls for a regional diplomatic surge. Afghanistan's neighbors have an interest in stabilizing the country just as we do. Those nations include Russia, China and Iran. They need to be engaged.

Smart security also recognizes that al Qaeda and other extremist groups have the ability to shift gears and set up shop in other places around the world, probably in the poorest places they can find.

That's why smart security supports investments in the development of impoverished nations, to give people the hope and the opportunity they need to reject violence and hatred in the first place. And because we need to keep the extremists away from weapons of mass destruction, smart security calls for vigorous inspection regimes and a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

In this session of Congress, Madam Speaker, I have introduced House Resolution 363, the ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century.'' It is the blueprint we need to defeat extremism in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. Madam Speaker, the strategy I have described is tough. It is pragmatic. It will protect the lives of our brave troops, and it will keep our Nation safe.

As the administration conducts its review of the situation in Afghanistan, I urge them to choose this strategy because it is the winning strategy.