[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 49 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3793-S3796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STRATEGY IN IRAQ
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we reflect on the Presidency of George
W. Bush, there were moments of high drama. Certainly, the moment of
highest drama in my recollection was when the President visited the
site of the 9/11 attack. When he went to New York and walked through
the smoke-filled rubble with the firefighters and the workmen still
digging through, it was a moment that I am sure will endure. It will be
remembered.
If you had to then select another moment in his Presidency that will
be remembered, it was a moment 3 years ago today when the President of
the United States boarded a Naval fighter plane and flew to land on the
deck of USS Abraham Lincoln.
It was a time when America wasn't certain about what had happened in
Iraq. We had launched an invasion. Saddam Hussein had been deposed.
There were still a lot of questions about the future of Iraq and what
would happen in that country.
The President of the United States came to that aircraft carrier on
that day, and as he landed and spoke to those who were assembled,
behind him was a banner which read ``Mission Accomplished.'' It was on
May 1, 2003, 3 years ago. The President said on that day:
In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies
have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing
and restructuring that country.
The President went on to say:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order
to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're
pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be
held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for
hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of
hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to
build Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself
instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the
new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by,
and for the Iraqi people.
[[Page S3794]]
The President went on to say 3 years ago:
From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we
are hunting down al-Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago, I
pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient
justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-
half of al-Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or
killed.
That was the speech of the President of the United States 3 years ago
today.
Since the President made that speech, this is the grim record. Since
that day, over the last 3 years, 2,262 Americans have been killed and
17,202 Americans have been wounded.
This occurred after the President announced to the world that our
mission was accomplished.
As we gather today to mark the third anniversary of that Presidential
statement, war continues with no end in sight, and 2,401 of our best
and bravest soldiers have given their lives. I have called many of
those families from Illinois. I have attended some of the funerals. I
know the lives of those families will never be the same. They have
given so much to this country. We thank them. We will continue to thank
them over and over again. We thank the men and women in uniform for
continuing to stand and fight to defend this country and its values.
They represent the very best. We should never forget that.
But we now know that within their ranks--even at the highest levels--
there have been serious concerns about this administration and its
strategy in Iraq.
Three years after President Bush's statement on that carrier that our
mission was accomplished, several leading generals, men who served
under the President at that time, men under his command, men who were
responsible for the lives of thousands of soldiers and marines, now
retired, in civilian status, have stepped forward. What have they said?
Retired LTG Gregory Newbold, the three-star Marine Corps general who
served as the Nation's top operations officer before the invasion of
Iraq, recently joined a number of his former colleagues and said:
I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments
of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful
visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have
been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but
unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning
from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be
paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such
a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and
military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must
be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as
honorable as the sacrifice.
General Newbold continued:
My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to
this fight was done with the casualness and a swagger that
are the special province of those who have never had to
execute these missions--or bury the results.
Finally, the general said:
We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first
step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to
fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle
East have performed their duty. Now we need people in
Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of
them. It is time to send a signal to our Nation, our forces
and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but
are prepared to rethink how we achieve it.
General Newbold is joined in this call for change by GEN Anthony
Zinni; MG Paul D. Eaton; MG John Batiste; MG Charles Swannack, Jr.; and
MG John Riggs, all retired.
If you look at the resumes of these men, you will find the very best
in service to our country. General Eaton, who headed up training for
the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004--what did he say? I quote him:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead
America's Armed Forces.
General Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, one
of the most storied and honored divisions in American military
history--here is what he said:
I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to
fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the
war against Saddam in Iraq.
These generals are calling for change at the highest level. How many
times during the course of this war when the President was questioned
about his military strategy did he say: I defer to the generals; I
defer to the military professionals. This will not be a political
decision.
That is the right response. But what would he now say when these six
men, many of whom served under his command, have stepped forward and
said that the plan for this war is so wrong and that the man executing
that plan as Secretary of Defense is not the right person for that job?
I have said publicly, and I will repeat it. I believe Secretary
Rumsfeld, for the good of this Nation, should leave as Secretary of
Defense. I believe this for the same reason these generals do. I do not
believe he can lead us to the right conclusion in Iraq, and we will pay
a heavy price if we do not acknowledge that.
As General Zinni has said, staying the course in Iraq sends us right
over Niagara Falls. We have to change the course. We have to understand
why change is imperative. It is worth taking a few minutes to
understand how we have reached this point some 3 years after President
Bush told the world our mission was accomplished.
Recently, Secretary of State Rice stated the United States has made
thousands of ``tactical errors.'' Secretary Rumsfeld challenged her,
and said: ``I don't know what she is talking about.''
She was right. The administration has made numerous and tragically
costly mistakes in Iraq. Think about it. The decision to invade without
allies--with only the United Kingdom as a major force by our side, and
many other countries sending smaller forces, we went in virtually
alone. It was a strategic misjudgement that has left us today carrying
the military and financial burdens in Iraq.
Before us on the floor of the Senate is another spending bill for
Iraq--this one over $100 billion. The total no one can guess, but $320
billion so far, more than $2 billion a week.
My situation is like some in the Senate. I voted against the use-of-
force resolution for the war in Iraq--23 of us did, 1 Republican and 22
Democrats on that October night in 2002. But I said from my memory of
what happened in Vietnam, as I tried my best to appreciate what our
soldiers faced, that I would vote for every penny that this President
asked for to wage this war so that the soldiers would always have what
they needed to win and come home safely. And I have done that. I will
continue to do that.
When my critics ask: How can you be against the war and vote to fund
it? The question comes down to something very basic from where I am
standing. If it were my son or daughter serving in uniform in that
country, I would want them to have everything to come home safely, even
if I bitterly disagreed with the administration's policy that sent them
into this war.
We have 132,000 soldiers in Iraq today. Our combined allies have
24,000, some of whom are in Kuwait. Mr. President, 2,401 Americans have
died. That is more than 10 times the losses that have been suffered by
the rest of the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
This record-setting supplemental bill that we take up this week in
the Senate will bring the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq to $280
billion. For now, as I have said: I am going to vote for it. But before
this Congress continues to fund, we have to ask hard questions.
If this is going to be a routine vote for the so-called emergency
supplemental bill, if this is going to be routine to the point where we
don't even question the policies and strategies of the war that we are
voting for, then we have failed in our responsibilities as Senators.
On February 25, 2003, the Army Chief of Staff, GEN Eric Shinseki,
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
General Shinseki stated, in an invasion of Iraq, that ``any postwar
occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a
country with ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.''
General Shinseki was asked how many troops are needed, and he said:
Something on the order of several hundred thousand
soldiers.
He also said:
Assistance from friend and allies would be helpful.
General Shinseki did not get the 300,000 or 400,000 troops that he
and many others thought would be needed nor did we get the allies.
General Shinseki, for his candor and honesty, was replaced in his
command. This administration was not about to stand
[[Page S3795]]
still for someone in uniform telling them the stark, honest truth, that
without enough soldiers the ones we sent would be in danger.
And just as Economic Adviser Larry Lindsay was fired for predicting
the war would cost $100 to $200 billion at a time the administration
said it might not cost anything because Iraqi oil would pay for it.
That was Mr. Wolfowitz who made that statement. The fact is, they were
right, the critics were wrong, and we have suffered as a result.
There was a failure by the leaders in our Government to see this
insurgency that came about in Iraq, that endangered our soldiers and
destabilized that country for so long.
When Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the reaction of the
insurgents and the uncertainty on the ground, he said:
Freedom's untidy.
In fact, the looting was the start of the postinvasion violence that
has claimed 94 percent of the American lives lost in Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld also signed off on another critical strategic
misjudgment. The decision after the invasion to immediately disband the
Iraqi Army made it easier for the insurgency.
We remember what happened when the Secretary went to Iraq in a
surprise visit. Soldiers greeted him. He took questions. The Tennessee
guardsman asked: Mr. Secretary, why do I have to dig through the dump
to find pieces of metal to put in my humvee to protect me and my fellow
soldiers? Why don't we have modern equipment to protect us on the
ground? The Secretary was at a loss for words. He was embarrassed.
America should have been embarrassed to send our soldiers into battle
without the equipment they needed.
Since the beginning of the war, a troubling pattern has emerged.
Under Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, the Pentagon has been very slow to
respond to the needs of our troops in the field.
In December 2003, LTG Ricardo Sanchez identified critical shortages
and protective equipment for our troops and lack of spare parts for
combat equipment, providing proof our soldiers were not adequately
supplied.
By mid-2004, a furor broke out when reports reached Washington, DC,
that many humvee vehicles in Iraq did not have armor, and American
soldiers and Marines using them were being maimed and killed by IEDs as
a result.
Congress flooded Defense budgets with funding for vehicle armor to
replace or improve inadequately protected vehicles. Even after news
coverage of this lack of planning forced Secretary Rumsfeld to
accelerate production of the armor, the Pentagon missed at least three
self-imposed deadlines to fully field armor all of our troops--this
after the President told us our mission had been accomplished.
A defining moment for Secretary Rumsfeld was when that Tennessee
guardsman challenged him. Here is what the guardsman asked:
Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for
pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
uparmor our vehicles?
Secretary Rumsfeld replied, in part:
You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army
you want.
That is our Secretary of Defense, speaking of the Army he had, not
the Army he wanted.
Let me remind everyone the decision to invade was the decision of the
United States of America. We picked the date. We picked the time. We
established when readiness would be adequate. And sadly, it was not.
That conversation with the guardsman from Tennessee revealed another
destructive tendency. Secretary Rumsfeld has seemingly forgotten about
the tremendous role our Guard and Reserve have played in this war and
must be prepared to play at home. The condition of the gear and
equipment from our Guard and Reserve continues to rapidly deteriorate.
Last week, I went to the Illinois National Guard Camp Lincoln in
Springfield, meeting with the officers and asking them about equipment.
Eighty percent of their men and women and units have been activated in
Iraq. They have left behind wornout, damaged, and destroyed equipment,
obviously, came back empty-handed, and now do not have the fundamental
equipment they need to train the guardsman to be able to respond to
domestic emergencies in my home State of Illinois. Our situation is not
unique. Across the United States, Guard and Reserve have only 34
percent of the equipment they need in the United States.
The true cost of this war is not just in the lives and the injuries
and the budgets but the fact that we have left our military, our Guard
and Reserve, ill equipped, unprepared, for the next challenge. That is
a sad condemnation of an administration that did not think through this
commitment, that did not understand that mission would not truly be
accomplished for years and years after the President made that claim.
As a result of ``going to war with the Army you have,'' and
inadequate logistical plans, our Army and Marine units on the ground in
Iraq are continuing to struggle with repairing, rebuilding, and
replacing equipment used by up to 3 years of sustained effort.
In testimony before Congress last year, U.S. Army GEN Richard Cody,
the vice chief of staff of the Army, stated:
We are equip-stretched, let there no doubt about it . . .
this Army started this war not fully equipped.
What excuse is there for that, that we sent our Army, our Marines,
all of the men and women in uniform, over to this war without the
proper equipment?
The failures on the part of the Secretary of Defense to bring a large
enough occupation force to ensure the force was properly equipped or to
plan for the emergency of full-scale insurgency against United States
represents strategic errors of great significance. The strategic
blindness continues today.
As I said, at least Secretary Rice acknowledges errors were made.
When asked about her statement, Secretary Rumsfeld said:
I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly
honest.
After 3 years of war, Secretary Rumsfeld does not know what the
Secretary of State is talking about when she says that thousands of
mistakes were made.
We need someone who can recognize the reality before him and
acknowledge that we need to change course in Iraq.
Last fall, the Senate, by a vote of 79 to 19, declared calendar year
2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi
sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the
security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions
for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces.
What does that mean? It is time for the Iraqis to stand and govern
their own nation. It is time for the Iraqi people to stand and defend
their own nation. How many years have we been promised that Iraqi
soldiers and police were this close to replacing American soldiers? You
have a right to be skeptical because we have yet to see the first
American soldier replaced by an Iraqi soldier taking their place,
standing guard for their own country.
Secretary Rumsfeld has not been able to create the conditions that
will allow for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We are a long way
from accomplishing our mission.
Early this month, Congress received the first report from the Bush
administration required by the year of transition amendment. The
administration report offers the same ideological blind spots that led
to the ``mission accomplished'' claim in 2003. It shows the same lack
of vision that failed to predict insurgency. There are no mentions of
militia. There is no analysis of the dangers of civil war. They still
see only what they want to see.
I believe Secretary Rumsfeld should resign. But I in no way hold him
solely responsible for the decisions on Iraq. After all, he works for
the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.
In order to find our way out of this disastrous mess this
administration has made in Iraq, the President clearly needs new
leadership in Defense. And that is not just my opinion. It is the
opinion of these retired generals--men who have given their lives to
this country, men whose hearts were broken as they watched their
soldiers and marines killed in battle, men who visited these veterans
in the hospitals, men who reflected on where we are today
[[Page S3796]]
and how we reached it and came to the same conclusion.
We need a new direction. We need new leadership. We need to have
someone in the Department of Defense and a strategy that will lead to
our troops coming home, the sooner the better.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________