[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1707-H1709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   TIME FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE TO ASSERT CONTROL OVER THEIR POLITICAL 
                                DESTINY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is now in its 4th year, and I, 
like many of my colleagues and millions of my fellow citizens, are 
troubled about the direction the conflict is taking.
  I have been to Iraq three times to visit our troops there, and I have 
spent time with our wounded here and in Germany. They have done 
everything we have asked of them, and they have done it magnificently. 
While we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid having 
Iraq spiral into an all-out civil war, now is the time for the Iraqis 
themselves to decide if they wish to be one country. And, Mr. Speaker, 
it is time for us to take steps that will ensure that 2006 is a year of 
significant transition to full sovereignty for the people of Iraq.
  This is a conflict that has come to grief in many ways. In the fall 
of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because of 
the threat that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and 
biological weapons, and because I was concerned that he had an

[[Page H1708]]

active nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at the debate 
in the House and Senate, this was a decision taken by the Congress to 
prevent Iraq from acquiring or using or transferring nuclear weapons.
  Months later, as American forces pushed across the Kuwaiti frontier 
and into Iraq, we were on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. 
Delivering the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein was a 
noble act, but the promotion of democracy in Iraq was not our primary 
reason for going to war. Similarly, we knew the Shiite majority had 
suffered terribly under the Ba'ath regime, and freeing them from the 
oppression of the Sunni minority was an added benefit of the invasion. 
But reordering the ethnic balance of political power in Iraq was not 
our primary purpose for going to war.
  Soon after the fall of Baghdad, it became clear that many of the pre-
war assumptions that had guided the President and his advisers were 
wrong. There were no chemical or biological weapons, there was no 
nuclear program, and while many Iraqis celebrated the ouster of Saddam 
Hussein, they did not line the streets of Baghdad to greet our troops 
with flowers. In fact, within days, there emerged the beginnings of 
what would become an organized and deadly insurgency that would quickly 
put an end to General Tommy Franks' plan to pare down the 140,000 
troops in April 2003 to about 30,000 by September 2003.
  In recent months, even as our military has become more adept at 
combating the insurgency, the nature of the struggle in Iraq has 
changed yet again. Long-simmering ethnic tensions, which had been 
suppressed under Saddam's totalitarian regime, have threatened to tear 
the country apart. While the full-scale civil war that many feared in 
the wake of the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra has not yet 
come to pass, most observers believe the country is currently in the 
grip of a low-level civil war that could erupt into a full-scale 
conflict at any time.
  The ongoing sectarian strife has been exacerbated by the protracted 
struggle among and inside Iraq's political factions over the formation 
of a permanent government. Last week's decision by the Shiite parties 
that make up the largest block in parliament that was elected 4 months 
ago to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari with Jawad al-Maliki 
paves the way for the formation of a broad-based government. The 
question is now whether this hopeful development will be enough to pull 
Iraq back from the precipice.
  There is a broad census among experts here and abroad that Iraq's 
future will be determined by politics and not by force. The formation 
of a permanent Iraqi Government, one that will have the power of 
legitimacy and vision to assume primary responsibility for securing and 
governing the country, is a necessary precondition to ending the 
insurgency, preventing a civil war, and allowing large-scale 
reconstruction to begin.
  Consequently, our role in Iraq must become more political and less 
military. For if there is one thing that Iraqis of every ethnic, 
religious, and political stripe can agree on, it is that they do not 
want foreign troops in their country indefinitely.
  I support a responsible redeployment of our troops during the course 
of 2006 so we are not drawn into sectarian conflict and so Iraqis are 
forced to take primary responsibility for securing and governing their 
country. A responsible redeployment of American coalition forces will 
have to be done in stages to build greater Iraqi sovereignty and 
control over security, not civil war. We should also publicly declare 
that the United States does not seek to maintain a permanent military 
presence in Iraq, and I have cosponsored legislation to prevent the 
establishment of permanent bases, which can only serve as a catalyst 
for the insurgency and for foreign jihadis.
  Devising and implementing a successful end-game in Iraq will be 
difficult, but an open-ended commitment to remain in the country is 
untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to succeed and for 
a representative government there to survive and to lead to a better 
future for the Iraqi people. But it will ultimately be the Iraqi people 
who must decide whether they wish to live together in peace as one 
country or continue to murder each other in large numbers. We cannot 
decide that for them.
  In the fight against the malicious al Qaeda in Iraq, foreign jihadis 
bent on destroying a government chosen by the Iraqi people, we are in 
solidarity with the Iraqi people who want a better life for their 
children. But, Mr. Speaker, we will not stand as a shield between Iraqi 
sects bent on killing each other. The new prime minister and leadership 
have the next 30 days to form a strong unity government. We hope they 
will be successful in that task, and we hope that the Iraqi leaders 
understand that the patience of the American people is running out.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is now in its fourth year and I, like many 
of my colleagues and millions of our fellow citizens, am deeply 
concerned about the direction that the conflict is taking.
  I have been to Iraq three times to visit with our troops there and I 
have spent time with our wounded here and in Germany. They have done 
everything that we have asked of them and they have done it 
magnificently.
  Tragically, these American heroes are still being killed and wounded 
daily. Over 2,300 troops have been killed and thousands more have been 
injured. American taxpayers are paying approximately $194 million a day 
for the war according to the Congressional Budget Office--that's more 
than a billion dollars a week. A new CRS report puts the current costs 
of continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at close to $10 billion 
a month, with most of that money going to Iraq.
  While we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid 
having Iraq spiral into all-out civil war, now is time for the Iraqis 
themselves to decide whether they wish to be one country. And, Mr. 
Speaker, it is time for us to take steps that will ensure that 2006 is 
a year of significant transition to full sovereignty for the people of 
Iraq.
  This is a conflict that has come to grief in so many ways. In the 
fall of 2002 I voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because 
of the threat that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and 
biological weapons and because I was convinced that he had an active 
nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at the debate in the 
House and Senate, this was a decision taken by the Congress to prevent 
Iraq from acquiring and using or transferring nuclear weapons.
  Months later, as American forces pushed across the Kuwaiti frontier 
and into Iraq, we were on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. 
Delivering the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein was a 
noble act, but the promotion of democracy in Iraq was not our primary 
reason for going to war.
  Similarly, we knew that the Shiite majority had suffered terribly 
under the Ba'ath regime and freeing them from the oppression of the 
Sunni minority was an added benefit of the invasion. But reordering the 
ethnic balance of political power in Iraq was not our primary purpose 
for going to war.
  Soon after the fall of Baghdad, it became clear that many of the 
prewar assumptions that had guided the President and his advisors were 
wrong. There were no chemical or biological weapons; there was no 
nuclear program; and, while many Iraqis celebrated the ouster of Saddam 
Hussein, they did not line the streets of Baghdad to greet our troops 
with flowers. In fact, within days there emerged the beginnings of what 
would become an organized, deadly insurgency that would quickly put an 
end to General Tommy Franks' plan to pare down the 140,000 troops in 
Iraq in April 2003 to about 30,000 by September 2003.
  In recent months even as our military has become more adept at 
combating the insurgency, the nature of the struggle in Iraq has 
changed yet again. Long-simmering ethnic tensions, which had been 
suppressed under Saddam's totalitarian regime, have threatened to tear 
the country apart. While the full-scale civil war that many feared in 
the wake of the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra has not yet 
come to pass, most observers believe that the country is currently in 
the grip of a low-level civil war that could erupt into full-scale 
conflict at any time. I am especially concerned by media reports that 
Shiite militias have been deploying to Kirkuk, Iraq's third largest 
city, in a bid to forestall any attempt by Kurds to assert control over 
this major center of Iraq's oil-rich north.

  The ongoing sectarian strife has been exacerbated by the protracted 
struggle among and inside Iraq's political factions over the formation 
of a permanent government. Last week's decision by the Shiite parties 
that make up the largest bloc in the parliament that was elected four 
months ago to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari with Jawad al-
Maliki paves the way for the formation of a broad-based government. The 
question now is whether this hopeful development will be enough to pull 
Iraq back from the precipice.
  There is a broad consensus among experts--here and abroad--that 
Iraq's future will

[[Page H1709]]

be determined by politics and not force. The formation of a permanent 
Iraqi government--one that will have the power, legitimacy and vision 
to assume primary responsibility for securing and governing the 
country--is a necessary precondition to ending the insurgency, 
preventing a civil war and allowing large-scale reconstruction to 
begin.
  Consequently, our role in Iraq must become more political and less 
military; for if there is one thing that Iraqis of every ethnic, 
religious and political stripe can agree on, it is that they do not 
want foreign troops in their country indefinitely.
  I support a responsible redeployment of our troops during the course 
of 2006 so that we are not drawn into sectarian conflict and so that 
Iraqis are forced to take primary responsibility for securing and 
governing their country. While the process of training Iraqi security 
forces has gone more slowly than many had hoped, recent reports have 
indicated that we are making progress and that every week more Iraqi 
units are capable of taking a greater role in combating the insurgency.
  A responsible redeployment of American and coalition forces will have 
to be done in stages to build greater Iraqi sovereignty and control 
over security, not civil war. In the first phase of the redeployment, 
our forces should be gradually withdrawn from insecure urban centers 
and moved to smaller cities where reconstruction is supported by the 
local population, and to remote bases where our troops will be able to 
support Iraqi units if necessary. Over time, these troops will be 
withdrawn from Iraq altogether and redeployed outside the country, 
either in the region or back to the United States. We should publicly 
declare that the United States does not seek to maintain a permanent 
military presence in Iraq and I have co-sponsored legislation to 
prevent the establishment of permanent bases, which can only serve as a 
catalyst for the insurgency and for foreign jihadis.
  Devising and implementing a successful endgame in Iraq will be 
difficult, but an open-ended commitment to remain in the country is 
untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to succeed, and for 
a representative government there to survive and lead to a better 
future for the Iraqi people. But it will ultimately be the Iraqi people 
who must decide whether they wish to live together in peace as one 
country or continue to murder each other in large numbers. We cannot 
decide that for them.
  In the fight against the malicious Al Qaeda in Iraq, foreign 
jihadists bent on destroying a government chosen by the Iraqi people, 
we are in solidarity with the Iraqi people who want a better life for 
their children. But we will not stand as a shield between different 
Iraqi sects bent on killing each other. The new Iraqi prime minister 
and leadership have the next thirty days to form a strong unity 
government. We hope that they will be successful in this task. But our 
hopes in Iraq have too often led to disappointment, and the Iraqi 
leaders must understand that the patience of the American people is 
running out.

                          ____________________