The first and foremost responsibility of our federal government is to defend the security of our nation. Fulfilling that responsibility is particularly important in light of the 21st century threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It requires a strong military – second to none – robust intelligence networks capable of identifying and neutralizing threats before they arise, and superior homeland security.
Late last year, President Obama ordered the start of a surge of troops into Afghanistan, saying:
“Our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.”
Under the President’s plan, another 30,000 troops are being deployed to Afghanistan to bolster U.S. efforts to train the Afghans so that they are better able to provide for their own security. The troops will also help to take control of areas now dominated by the Taliban, hold those areas, and then gradually turn them over to Afghan security forces.
I agree with the President and support the commitment of additional troops, though I question whether 30,000 additional troops are sufficient to ensure success. I am also troubled by the arbitrary July 2011 withdrawal date he proposed, believing that it will undermine the trust and confidence of our Afghan and regional allies, while emboldening the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Nevertheless, General Stanley McChrystal, our top commander in Afghanistan, provided some reassurance at a congressional hearing, saying that he will not hesitate to request more troops if they are needed. He also addressed the timeline for withdrawal, suggesting that “It's not a deadline at all, but a part of evolution of what we're doing.” I hope the General is right.
Last year, I had the chance to visit Afghanistan and meet with that country’s leaders, as well as tribal elders in Kandahar province, the Taliban’s stronghold in the country. I came away convinced of the need to finish our mission there and prevail against the Taliban and al Qaeda. To do otherwise would facilitate a return to Taliban control of areas that could then be used by al Qaeda to recruit and train terrorists, generate revenue and plan terrorist operations. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton observed, “If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast al Qaeda would be back in Afghanistan.”
Recent success in Iraq is largely attributable to decisions made in 2007, when, despite overwhelming opposition at the time, then-President Bush ordered a surge of troops into that country to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus. The surge led to undeniable security and political gains in Iraq – gains that paved the way for a drawdown of U.S. troops.
The drawdown was negotiated by the Bush administration in the Status of Forces Agreement at the end of 2008. It called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
President Obama set an accelerated deadline after taking office, calling for the withdrawal of all combat forces by the end of August 2010. But concerns about political instability and increased violence led General Ray Odierno, our top commander in Iraq, to draw up contingency plans to delay that withdrawal date if necessary. I believe the General is right to consider adapting the mission to conditions on the ground, rather than abide by arbitrary, accelerated timetables.
The gains made in Iraq have come at too great an expense – in terms of the lives of American servicemen and women, and America treasure – to do otherwise.
The 1991 Strategic Arms Reductions Act Treaty (START) expired at the end of 2009, and President Obama and his Russian counterpart have been working to develop a successor agreement that further reduces the number of nuclear weapons in both countries’ arsenals. While I don’t believe that lower levels of nuclear forces in our deterrent necessarily make the U.S. or our allies safer, I might be able to support a new treaty if it addresses various concerns, including verification and the modernization of our nuclear stockpile.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the need for modernization this way: “Sensitive parts [of our nuclear arsenal] to not last . . . To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.”
That’s why I offered an amendment last year that requires the President to develop a plan to modernize our nuclear deterrent and submit it to the Senate along with a START follow-on treaty. Senators Byrd, Levin, McCain, Kerry, and Lugar joined me in writing to the President to emphasize the point. Subsequently, 41 Senators wrote to the President in December, articulating the objectives that a modernization plan must meet before a START follow-on agreement could win their support.
My amendment also expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not commit to limits on its missile defenses, space capabilities or advanced global strike capability development during the START negotiations. Our missile defenses keep us and our allies safe from ballistic missile threats – including those from Iran and North Korea – and have nothing to do with nuclear weapons reductions.
The proliferation of ballistic missiles, which can carry nuclear, chemical, or biological payloads, is a serious concern. Roughly two dozen countries, including North Korea and Iran, now have or are developing such weapons.
Iran has conducted a series of ballistic missile tests and used a ballistic missile to launch a satellite into space, demonstrating its access to technology that is similar to that required to launch a missile capable of reaching the United States. In December, it test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe. North Korea has test fired missiles as well, and, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warned that the North Korean regime could have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the United States in as few as three years. Clearly, the United States must be prepared for these threats, including with a robust missile defense system that can protect American citizens and our allies from attack.
I support the development of missile defenses, and great strides in that direction have been made in recent years. The Missile Defense Agency developed, deployed, and integrated ground- and sea-based interceptors, Patriot units, and sensors based on land, at sea and in space. These are important steps in the right direction, but we have a way to go before an effective, operational missile defense system is in place.
Regrettably, these gains are now at risk under the budgets that President Obama has proposed. Last year, he proposed cutting $1.2 billion from missile defense programs, eliminated advanced projects like the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Air-Borne Laser, and abandoned U.S. agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic, which would have deployed missile defenses within their borders. The President’s budget this year would continue to underfund missile defenses – leaving the program with $600 million less than when he took office – while the threat continues to grow.
