[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11780-S11782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 3 years ago when the Congress and the
country debated the resolution to give President Bush the authority to
launch a preemptive war against Iraq, reference was often made to the
lessons of Vietnam.
There are many lessons, both of that war and of the efforts to end
it. But one that made a deep impression on me came from former
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He was, after all, the architect
of that war. He said our greatest mistake was not understanding our
enemy.
Vietnam was a relatively simple country. It had changed little in the
preceding 3,000 years. It was for the most part racially, ethnically,
linguistically, and even religiously homogeneous. One would have
thought it would be easy for American military and political leaders to
understand.
Apparently it was not. The White House and the Pentagon, convinced
that no country, particularly a tiny impoverished land of rice farmers,
could withstand the military might of the United States, never bothered
to study and understand the history or culture of Vietnam, and they
made tragic miscalculations. They lacked the most basic knowledge of
the motivation and the capabilities and resolve of the people they were
fighting.
At the start of the Iraq war, those who drew some analogies to
Vietnam were ridiculed by the Pentagon and the White House. Iraq is not
a Vietnam, they insisted. Our troops would be greeted as liberators.
Troop strength was not a concern. Our mission would be quickly
accomplished. Democracy would spread throughout the Middle East.
Freedom was on the march.
It is true that Vietnam and Iraq are vastly different societies, but
the point was not that they are similar but that some of the same
lessons apply.
We did not understand Vietnam, a simple country, and we paid a huge
price for our ignorance and our arrogance. Iraq, a complex country
comprised of rival clans, tribes, and ethnic and religious factions who
have fought each other for centuries, we understand even less.
If this were not apparent to many at the start of this ill-conceived
and politically motivated war, a war I opposed from the beginning, it
should be obvious today. Yet to listen to the Secretary of Defense or
to the President or the Vice President, one would never know it.
We know today that President Bush decided to invade Iraq without
evidence to support the use of force and well before Congress passed a
resolution giving him the authority to do so--actually, authority he
did not even believe he needed--despite our great Constitution which
invests in the Congress the power to declare war.
Twenty-three Senators voted against that resolution, and I will
always be proud to have been one of them.
We know today that the motivation for a plan to attack Iraq, hatched
by a handful of political operatives, had taken hold within in the
White House even before 9/11 and without any connection to the war on
terrorism that came later.
We know that the key public justifications for the war--to stop
Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and supporting al-
Qaida--were based on faulty intelligence and outright distortions, and
they have been
[[Page S11781]]
thoroughly discredited. United Nations weapons inspectors, who were
dismissed by the White House as being naive and ineffective, turned out
to have gathered far better information with a tiny fraction of the
budget of our own intelligence agencies.
We know the insurgency is continuing to grow along with American
casualties--1,999 killed, and at least 15,220 wounded, many with
crippling injuries, as of yesterday--despite the same old ``light at
the end of the tunnel'' assertions and cliches by the White House and
top officials in the Pentagon.
The sad but inescapable truth, which the President either does not
see or refuses to believe or admit, is the Iraqi insurgency has
steadily grown, in part because of, not in spite of, our presence
there.
After baiting the insurgents to ``bring them on,'' as the President
said, we got what the President asked for. More than 2 years later, the
pendulum has swung against us and the question is no longer whether we
can stop the insurgency; the question is how do we extricate ourselves.
According to soldiers who volunteered for duty in Iraq believing in
the mission and who have returned home, many Iraqis who detest the
barbaric tactics of the insurgents have also grown to despise us. They
blame us for the lack of water and electricity, for the lack of jobs
and health care, for the hardships and violence they are suffering day
in and day out.
Unlike our troops and their families who are making great sacrifices
every day, most Americans have been asked to sacrifice nothing for this
war. In fact, we don't pay the bills. The bills are being sent to our
children and our grandchildren by way of our rapidly escalating
national debt and annual deficits.
Yet as the hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the war
continue to pile up and domestic programs, such as Medicaid, job
training, and programs for needy students, are cut, then the sacrifices
are going to be felt as well.
Slogans have become little more than political rallying cries for the
White House, slogans as empty and unfulfilled as ``mission
accomplished.'' Our troops were sent to fight an unnecessary war
without sufficient armor against these ruthless and barbaric bombing
attacks, without adequate reinforcements, without a plan to win the
peace, and without adequate medical care and other services when they
return home on stretchers or crutches or with eye patches, unable to
walk, to work, to pay their mortgages, or to support their families.
Many of our veterans have been treated shamefully by their Government
when it sent them into harm's way under false pretenses and again after
they returned home.
Today I worry about places such as Ramadi, where more than 300
members of the Army National Guard from my State of Vermont are
currently serving valiantly alongside their comrades in the Marine
Corps and the Pennsylvania National Guard. Dozens of other citizen
soldiers from the Vermont Guard are serving across Iraq, while hundreds
more are deployed throughout the Persian Gulf region.
Many Vermonters have been killed in Ramadi and elsewhere by roadside
bombs and all-too-accurate sniper attacks. The insurgents too often
seem to attack and then escape with impunity. You can actually open
newspapers and see photos of armed insurgents walking the streets of
Iraq in broad daylight.
Many of these cold-blooded attacks are by people who are willing to
trade their own lives to kill civilians, security guards, and our
soldiers who now have no way of knowing whom they can trust among the
general population.
The President has no plan to deal with Ramadi, let alone the rest of
Iraq, except doing more of what we have been doing for more than 2
years at a cost of $5 billion a month--money we don't have and that
future generations of Americans are going to have to repay. Nor has he
proposed a practical alternative to our wasteful energy policy that
guarantees our continued dependence on Persian Gulf oil for decades to
come.
I am sure that what our military is doing to train the Iraqi Army and
what our billions upon billions of dollars are doing to help rebuild
Iraq--whatever is not stolen or wasted by profiteering contractors--is
making a difference. Iraq is no longer governed by a corrupt, ruthless
dictator, and there have been halting but important steps toward
representative government.
I applaud the Iraqis who courageously stood in long lines to cast a
ballot for a new constitution, despite the insurgents' threats. There
are many profiles in courage among the Iraqi people, just as there are
in the heroic and daily endeavors of United States soldiers there.
But this progress masks deeper troubles and may be short lived,
threatened by a widening insurgency and a divisive political process
that is increasingly seen as leading to a Shiite-dominated theocracy
governed by Islamic law and aligned with Iran, or the dissolution of
Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite states.
Mr. President, this war has been a costly disaster for the United
States of America. More than half of the American people now say they
have lost confidence in the President's handling of it.
Far from making us safer from terrorists, in fact, it has turned Iraq
into a haven and recruiting ground for terrorists and deflected our
attention and resources away from the fight against terrorism. If
anything, it has emboldened our enemies, as it has become increasingly
apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a
determined insurgency.
Regrettably, it is no longer a secret how vulnerable we are.
Hurricane Katrina showed how tragically unprepared we are to respond to
a major disaster 4 years after 9/11 and after wasting billions of
dollars on an unnecessary war.
Our cities are little further than the drawing board when it comes to
developing workable evacuation plans for a terrorist attack or other
emergency, not to mention how to feed, house, and provide for millions
of displaced persons.
This war has caused immense damage to our relations with the world's
Muslims, a religion practiced by some 1.2 billion people, about which
most Americans know virtually nothing. We cannot possibly mount an
effective campaign against terrorism without the trust, respect, and
the active support of Muslims, particularly in the Middle East where
our image has been so badly damaged. Our weakened international
reputation is another heavy price our country has paid for this war.
Each day, as more and more Iraqi civilians, often children, lose
their lives and limbs from suicide bombers and also from our bombs, the
resentment and anger toward us intensifies. And every week, the number
of U.S. service men and women who are killed or wounded creeps higher
and will soon pass 2,000, but, even more tragically, shows no sign of
diminishing.
This war has isolated us from our allies, most of whom want no part
of it, and if we continue on the course the President has set, it will
also divide our country.
Other Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, have
expressed frustration and alarm with the President's failure to
acknowledge that this war has been a costly mistake, that more of the
same is not a workable policy, and that we need to change course. My
friend Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has pointed out the increasing
similarities to Vietnam. We learned this week that the administration
has even resumed the discredited Vietnam-era practice of measuring
progress by reporting body counts.
White House and Pentagon officials and their staunchest supporters in
Congress warn of a wider civil war if we pull our troops out. They
could be right. In fact, it could be the first thing they have been
right about since the beginning of this reckless adventure.
My question to them is: When and how then do we extract ourselves
from this mess? What does the President believe needs to happen before
our troops can come home? What is his plan for getting to that point?
If we cannot overcome the insurgency, what can we realistically
expect to accomplish in Iraq--and at what cost--that requires the
continued deployment of our troops? What is it that compels us to spend
billions of dollars to rebuild the Iraqi military when our own National
Guard is stretched to the breaking point and cannot even get the money
for the equipment it needs?
[[Page S11782]]
I doubt the President or the Secretary of Defense will answer these
questions. Instead of answers, we get rhetoric that conflicts with just
about everything we hear or read, including from some of this country's
most distinguished retired military officers who served under both
Republican and Democratic administrations.
Six months ago, the Vice President said the insurgency was in its
last throes. That was just the latest in a long string of grossly
inaccurate statements and predictions and false expectations about
Iraq.
Secretary Rice, when asked recently when U.S. forces could begin to
come home assuming the Administration's rosy predictions come true,
could not, or would not, even venture a guess.
Without answers--real answers, honest answers--to these questions, I
will not support the open-ended deployment of our troops in a war that
was based on falsehood and justified with hubris.
Even though I opposed this war, I have prayed, like other Americans,
that it would weaken the threat of terrorism and make the world safer,
that our troops' sacrifices would be justified, and that the President
had a plan for completing the mission.
Instead, it has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, it
is fueling the insurgency, it is causing severe damage to the
reputation and readiness of the United States military, and it is
preventing us from addressing the inexcusable weaknesses in our
homeland security.
The Iraqi people, at least the Shiites and Kurds, have voted for a
new constitution, as hastily drafted, flawed, and potentially divisive
as it may be. Saddam Hussein, whose capacity for cruelty was seemingly
limitless, is finally facing trial for his heinous crimes. Elections
for a new national government are due by the end of the year. By then,
it will be more than 2\1/2\ years since Saddam's overthrow, and we will
have given the Iraqi people a chance to chart their own course. The
sooner we reduce our presence there, the sooner they will have to make
the difficult decisions necessary to solve their own problems in their
own country.
Our military commanders say that Iraq's problems increasingly need to
be solved through the political process, not through military force. We
must show Iraq and the world that we are not an occupying force, and
that we have no designs on their country or their oil. The American
people need to know that the President has a plan to bring our troops
home.
Once a new Iraqi government is in place, I believe the President
should consult with Congress on a flexible plan that includes pulling
our troops back from the densely populated areas where they are
suffering the worst casualties and to bring them home.
It is also long overdue for Congress and the White House to reassess
our policy toward this region.
The President has declared democracy is taking root throughout the
Middle East, and there have been some small, positive steps. But they
are dwarfed by the ongoing threat posed by Iran, Syria's continued
meddling in Iraq and Lebanon, repression and corruption in Saudi Arabia
and Egypt, the danger that the momentum for peace from Israel's
withdrawal from Gaza will be lost as settlement construction
accelerates in the West Bank, and the widespread--albeit mistaken--
belief among Muslims that the United States wants to destroy Islam
itself.
Just as the White House's obsession with Iraq has diverted our
resources and impeded our efforts to strengthen our defenses against
terrorism at home, so has it made it more difficult to constructively,
with our allies, address these regional threats.
As I have said, I did not support this war, and I believe that
history will not judge kindly those who got us into this debacle by
attacking a country that did not threaten us, after deceiving the
American people and ridiculing those who appealed for caution and for
instead mobilizing our resources directly against the threat of
terrorism.
I worry that many of our young veterans who have gone to Iraq and
experienced the brutality and trauma of war and may already feel guilty
for having survived, will increasingly question its purpose. As the
architects of this war move on to other jobs, I fear we are going to
see another generation of veterans, many of them physically and
psychologically scarred for life, who feel a deep sense of betrayal by
their Government.
If President Bush will not say what remains to be done before he can
declare victory and bring our troops home, then the Congress should be
voting on what this war is really costing the Nation.
We should vote on paying for the war versus cutting Medicaid, as some
are proposing; or pay for the war versus cutting VA programs that are
already unable to pay the staggering costs of treatment and
rehabilitation for our injured veterans; or pay for it versus
rebuilding our National Guard; or rebuilding FEMA; or securing our
ports and our borders; or investing in our intelligence so we can
finally capture Osama bin Laden; or investing in health care for the
tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to get sick; or fixing
our troubled schools, so our children can learn to do a better job than
we have of making the world a safer place for all people.
These, and the tarnished reputation of a country that I love and so
many once admired as not only powerful buy also good and just are the
real costs of this war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Order of Procedure
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I put all Senators on notice that we will
soon be starting the debate on an amendment to be offered by Senator
Durbin. We had expected to go on the bill at 10, with morning business
scheduled from 9:30 to 10, but morning business has run a little late.
One of the Senators asked for an extension of time, which was not
objected to. Now Senator Stabenow has asked for 5 minutes, which we
will agree to. Senator Harkin and I are on the floor, and we are
anxious to proceed with the business of the bill. I know Senator Harkin
would like to make a comment.
Mr. HARKIN. If the distinguished chairman would yield, I am sorry I
was off the floor momentarily, but did the Senator from Pennsylvania do
anything about the amendment that is pending?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the request was made to have the
amendment which is pending accepted by a voice vote. It is really in
the nature of a technical amendment. The amendment reduces Federal
administrative costs for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
by $15 million with no cuts coming from oversight and enforcement. This
reduction is necessary to bring the Labor-HHS bill into compliance with
its allocation ceiling. Concerns have been raised that this reduction
would reduce the funds available to administer the new prescription
drug program. This is not the case--the reduction will come from
administrative overhead, supplies and contracts. We had talked about
having a vote on it this morning at 10:30, but in light of the request
that we not vote on that amendment but vote on the Durbin amendment,
that is acceptable to this side.
As I said before, Senator Stabenow has asked for 5 minutes, and we
are prepared to yield that time. But we want to put all Senators on
notice we are anxious to proceed with the bill, and I will expect to
start on the Durbin amendment at about 10:24 and expect to vote on it
sometime between 10:45 and 11.
Senator Harkin and I, backed by the leaders, have said that we are
going to do our best to enforce 20-minute votes, 15 and a 5-minute
extension. So all Senators should know when we start the Durbin vote
that it will be limited to 20 minutes to the extent that Senator Harkin
and I can prevail on that. When we finish the Durbin vote at about
11:15, we would be pressing to have amendments filed. We have a long,
complicated bill. There is an amendment lined up at 2:15, but if we are
to move this bill along and to avoid pressing for third reading and
final passage, we want to avoid lengthy quorum calls.
I yield the floor.
____________________