[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 2, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10988-S10989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RELIEF FOR AMERICAN TROOPS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senators and Representatives are now 
returning to Washington, D.C., from their sojourns to their home 
districts. With the turn of a page on a calendar, the dog days of 
summer draw to a close, and our Nation's Capital City returns to life 
from its annual slumber. The business of government is set once more to 
spring into high gear as the oppressive heat of August turns to the 
cooler days of September.
  Many of those who carry out the work of the American people were 
fortunate to escape the worst days of the oppressive Washington summer. 
But as policy makers return to their hectic schedules, we must remember 
that there are many thousands of Americans on the other side of the 
globe who were not afforded any relief from sweltering temperatures or 
allowed any bit of relaxation from their life-threatening missions.
  There was no summer vacation for the 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the 
34,000 soldiers in Kuwait, or the 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. These 
Americans sweated through all 31 days of August under their Kevlar 
helmets and heavy bulletproof vests. Many had no opportunity to enjoy 
the luxury of air conditioning or even a simple glass of ice water, for 
they were kept on high alert during every waking moment watching for 
snipers, booby traps, and assassins.
  As the cost of our occupation of Iraq continues to grow, it is 
increasingly apparent to the American people that the White House has 
gotten the United States more deeply involved in Iraq than the 
administration's pre-war rhetoric would ever have led us to believe.
  As of Friday, August 29, we have lost 282 Americans during the 
invasion and occupation of Iraq, and nearly 1,400 have been wounded 
during that time. The news today is of two more soldiers killed in a 
roadside bomb attack. The number of American lives lost is quickly 
approaching the total number of Americans killed during 1991's 
Operation Desert Storm, when 292 troops lost their lives to hostile 
fire and accidents.
  The dangers of Iraq have shown no signs of abating. The August 19 
bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad claimed the lives of 23 
international aid workers, and the August 29 bombing of a mosque in 
Najaf appears to have killed more than 80 worshipers.
  Only a handful of Iraqi leaders who are pictured on the military's 
most-wanted deck of cards remain at large, but the perpetrators of the 
attacks seem to be broadening their set of targets. It appears that the 
violence is not just perpetrated by Iraqis, but that Iraq is becoming a 
new stage for terrorists to strike at the United States. The top Army 
officer in charge of ground troops in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, 
spoke in July describing our occupation forces as a ``terrorist magnet, 
where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of 
opportunity.''
  While the sons and daughters of America continue to patrol the 
shooting gallery in Iraq, progress toward bringing reinforcements from 
our friends and allies has proceeded at a miserable pace. For every 
foreign soldier in Iraq, there are nearly nine American troops. Other 
countries with sizable militaries, such as France, Germany, and India, 
have flatly refused to participate in the occupation of Iraq without a 
U.N.-authorized peacekeeping mission. Turkey, our staunch ally on the 
northern border of Iraq, has announced that it will delay a vote on 
sending peacekeepers until some time in October.
  Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that many of our allies 
are reluctant to commit their own troops to the aftermath of a pre-
emptive war, considering how the Administration tried to bully them 
during our headlong rush to war against Iraq? While the White House was 
furiously trying to twist arms in Berlin, Paris, Ankara, and Moscow to 
gain acquiescence to a war in Iraq, millions took to the streets to 
protest the President's policy toward Iraq.

  According to polls released by the Pew Research Center on March 18, 
2003, the day before the war began, opposition to a war in Iraq was at 
69 percent in Germany, 75 percent in France, 86 percent in Turkey, and 
87 percent in Russia. Yet the White House scoffed at this opposition 
and belittled the need to unify the world in confronting Saddam 
Hussein. Could it be that our troops are now paying the price for the 
Administration's bullheaded rush to war without the broad and active 
support of the international community?
  But even if more international troops arrive under the 
Administration's plans, Americans should not be lulled into thinking 
that the threat to our troops will be over. Pentagon planners are now 
working to divide the occupation of Iraq among the British, an 
unidentified foreign force, and U.S. troops.
  It appears that this plan will continue to have American troops bear 
the responsibility of patrolling the ``Sunni triangle,'' where the bulk 
of the guerrilla attacks have been occurring. Our men and women in 
uniform will continue to walk through the dangerous back alleys of 
Baghdad, Tikrit, and Fallujah, facing daily attacks. For so long as 
U.S. troops continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the occupation 
mission in Iraq, our troops will remain overburdened and under fire.
  Let there be no doubt, our troops are stretched thin. On June 24, 
2003, I requested a study by the Congressional Budget Office on how a 
protracted mission in Iraq could affect our military readiness. In 
particular, I asked how many troops our armed forces can devote to a 
long-term occupation of Iraq, what stresses this might place upon the 
National Guard and the Reserves, and what costs and risks may be 
associated with the strain upon our forces.
  The results of the CBO study, which will be released tomorrow, is 
quantified evidence that the long-term occupation is straining our 
forces close to the breaking point.
  According to the advance copy of the CBO report that was delivered to 
my office today, if we are to rely primarily on the active duty Army to 
carry out the occupation of Iraq while maintaining our presence in 
Korea, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and elsewhere, we can only maintain 
38,000 to 64,000 soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait over the long term.
  Even if the Pentagon takes extraordinary measures, such as depending 
on large deployments of the National Guard and the Reserves and using 
Marines as peacekeepers, the CBO report estimates that we could still 
only sustain 67,000 to 106,000 troops in Iraq for the long term. The 
annual incremental cost for a continuing deployment of this size, 
assuming that the security situation becomes stable, could be up to $19 
billion per year.
  Some have suggested that the strain on our soldiers in Iraq could be 
relieved by adding 2 new Army divisions to the existing 10. The CBO 
report estimates that this option would cost up to $19.4 billion in 
one-time costs, would add another $9.5 billion to $10.1 billion to the 
annual defense budget, and would take from 3 to 5 years to field those 
troops.
  The CBO report also analyzes how a large commitment of troops to Iraq 
would affect the ability of our armed forces to respond to a crisis 
elsewhere in the world, such as a North Korean invasion of South Korea. 
Not surprisingly, the larger the commitment the U.S. maintains in Iraq, 
the fewer troops we would have ready to respond to other threats. The 
statistics contained in the CBO report prompts more questions about the 
readiness of our military during a sustained occupation of Iraq.
  The CBO also reports that our troop levels in Iraq will have to start 
declining by March 2004 if we hope to preserve readiness in our armed 
forces. Indeed, the Army has already drafted a plan to start rotating 
units in and out of Iraq by that time. But this plan also anticipates 
that foreign troops will arrive to take up the slack in the occupation 
mission created by a declining number of U.S. troops. So far, however, 
administration efforts to line up countries to join in this mission 
have been less than impressive.
  That the White House failed to prepare the American public for the 
demands of post-war Iraq on our troops is painfully evident.
  Now there are rumblings that the administration may be ready to 
swallow

[[Page S10989]]

its false pride and seek a new U.N. resolution to encourage foreign 
participation in the occupation of Iraq. This would be a positive 
development, one that the administration should have embraced a long 
time ago.
  We have heard grandiose claims of international cooperation from this 
administration before. On April 8, 2003, President Bush promised a 
``vital role'' for the U.N. in rebuilding Iraq. When pressed about what 
he meant, the President responded:

       When we say vital role for the United Nations, we mean 
     vital role for the United Nations in all aspects of the 
     issue.

  Let us hope that reality begins to match rhetoric.
  I sincerely hope that the talk of a rapprochement with the U.N. is 
not more rhetoric or posturing by the administration. Our sons and 
daughters cannot be asked to bear the heavy burdens in Iraq essentially 
alone. The report that will be issued by the Congressional Budget 
Office tomorrow demonstrates that even our overwhelming military 
technology cannot offset the toll of maintaining a huge commitment of 
troops in Iraq for the long haul.
  We can no longer afford to deliberate on whether to put a formal 
request for peacekeepers before NATO and the United Nations Security 
Council.
  Every day frittered away by the administration is another day that 
our troops will bear the staggering burden of the dangers of occupation 
virtually alone.
  Every month that goes by without more help from our friends and 
allies means billions more taxpayer dollars spent on our occupation of 
Iraq, and most sadly, more grieving American families.
  For the sake of the brave men and women who serve our country in 
uniform on the dangerous streets and in the back alleys of Iraq, the 
administration should do now what it failed to do before the war. The 
United States must ask for the support of NATO and the United Nations 
to share not only the burdens but also the decisions regarding post-war 
Iraq. That appeal must be genuine and must be made now.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________