[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3991-S3992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 93--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH 
              RESPECT TO ACCOMPLISHING THE MISSION IN IRAQ

  Mr. HARKIN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                            S. Con. Res. 93

       Whereas the members of the United States Armed Forces have 
     served honorably and courageously in Iraq;
       Whereas Congress and the people of the United States owe a 
     debt of gratitude to those members of the Armed Forces who 
     have died fighting for their country; and
       Whereas Iraq will have established a free and democratic 
     government once it completes its constitution-making process: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the United States should not maintain a permanent 
     military presence or military bases in Iraq;
       (2) the United States should not attempt to control the 
     flow of Iraqi oil; and
       (3) United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from 
     Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq's 
     constitution-making process or December 31, 2006, whichever 
     occurs first.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Monday, May 1, marked the 3rd anniversary 
of President Bush's speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham 
Lincoln. On that occasion, with a giant banner behind him proclaiming 
``Mission Accomplished,'' the President said triumphantly that ``major 
combat operations in Iraq have ended.'' But, 3 years later, 133,000 
troops remain on the ground, and' the President has signaled that the 
U.S. military occupation in Iraq is open-ended and of indefinite 
duration.
  This has given rise to suspicions that the United States has long-
term designs on Iraq and its oil. And it has deprived the Iraqi 
government of incentive to resolve its internal divisions and stand on 
its own feet. With the war in Iraq now in its 4th year, it is clear 
that the President's course is not a strategy for success; it is a 
strategy for continued stalemate and stagnation.
  It is time to chart new course. To that end, today, I am offering a 
concurrent resolution that does three things: 1. It states that ``the 
United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or 
military bases in Iraq. 2. It states that ``the United States should 
not attempt to control the flow of Iraqi oil. And 3. It states that the 
``United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from Iraq as soon as 
practicable after the completion of Iraq's constitution-making process 
or December 31, 2006, whichever comes first.'' A companion to this 
concurrent resolution has been offered in the other body by 
Representative Mike Thompson of California.
  The capable and courageous men and women of our Armed Forces have 
completed the tasks they were sent to Iraq to accomplish: Saddam 
Hussein's dictatorship has been deposed; we are certain that Iraq does 
not possess weapons of mass destruction; and the Iraqi people have a 
constitution and a democratically elected government. To our troops' 
great credit, they have achieved these things despite a series of 
disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders in Washington.
  Today, the question is: Why are U.S. forces still in Iraq? Our 
commanders have acknowledged that Iraq's remaining challenges cannot be 
resolved by the U.S. military, as they are mostly political. As GEN 
John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said recently, the 
situation in Iraq is ``changing in its nature from insurgency toward 
sectarian violence''--I would. add, with U.S. troops caught in the 
crossfire.
  Given these realities, President Bush's call to ``stay the course'' 
is a slogan, not a strategy. for success. Indeed, I fear that ``stay 
the course'' really means ``stay forever,'' and this sends exactly the 
wrong message. It stokes the insurgents, who believe that the U.S. 
wants a permanent military presence in Iraq. And it takes away any 
incentive for the Iraqi government to resolve its internal divisions 
and stand on its own feet.
  As GEN George Casey, our commander in Iraq, told the Senate last 
September, ``Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of 
occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on 
the coalition, [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for 
Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.''
  BG Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, put it 
this way: ``I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is 
to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled . . . 
through military options or military operations. It's going to be 
settled in the political process.''
  I would add that the Iraqi people also believe that a redeployment of 
U.S.

[[Page S3992]]

forces would give a boost to political progress. According to a recent 
poll conducted by the University of Maryland, more than 80 percent of 
Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. When asked what the impact of a 
withdrawal of U.S. troops would be, large majorities of Iraqis believe 
that insurgent attacks will decrease, sectarian violence will decline, 
and the sectarian factions in parliament will be more willing to 
cooperate.

  We all hope that the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders are sincere 
in their stated desire to avoid an all-out civil war. Last week, they 
agreed on a new prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. And Mr. al-Maliki 
has pledged to announce a national-unity cabinet as quickly as 
possible. As President Bush said on Monday, the creation of a new Iraqi 
government is ``a turning point.'' We hope that is the case. But 
whether or not Mr. al-Maliki makes good on his pledges, it is certainly 
time for a turning point in U.S. policy in Iraq.
  The remainder of the year 2006 must be a period of transition to full 
Iraqi sovereignty, with the goal of deploying U.S. forces out of Iraq 
by the end of this calendar year. It is time to hand off security 
responsibilities to the Iraqi army and police, and to redeploy our U.S. 
armed forces from Iraq by Dec. 31.
  This strategic redeployment must involve converting our vast military 
presence on the ground in Iraq to a quick-reaction force staged in 
countries bordering Iraq--countries that share our interest in a stable 
Iraq and view our military presence in the region as a stabilizing 
force. This force could be used to respond to threats to our national 
security in Iraq or elsewhere. I believe the vast number of National 
Guard units should be redeployed to their states to shore up gaps and 
vulnerabilities in our own homeland security.
  I would expect that, as our troops withdraw from Iraq, this would 
free up U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in 
Afghanistan. Other troops would be available to help respond to 
emerging terrorist threats in countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and 
Yemen, which threaten to become major breeding grounds for terrorists.
  At the same time that we are redeploying our Armed Forces, we need to 
foster sustained diplomatic engagement--working with Middle Eastern 
nations--to facilitate rival Iraqi factions in reaching a political 
settlement. Iraq's neighbors have a profound stake in its stability, 
but they currently have no incentive to get involved. Once it is clear 
that the U.S. is leaving, those nations will be highly motivated to 
broker a deal within Iraq.
  Some say that the U.S. forces in Iraq are the only thing that stands 
between the Sunnis and Shiites, and all-out civil war. I disagree. It 
is the ongoing presence of U.S. forces--and the prospect that we will 
be in Iraq as a babysitter for years to come--that has delayed progress 
on the political front. It allowed Iraqi leaders to quarrel and dither 
for more than four months before finally choosing an acceptable prime 
minister.
  In addition, our continuing presence--in fact, our apparently growing 
presence in Iraq--is a propaganda victory and recruiting tool for the 
insurgency in Iraq, and for Islamic extremists around the world. The 
insurgents and jihadists are strengthened by the overwhelming 
perception among Iraqis that the United States military is an occupying 
force, that we are building what appear to be permanent bases, and that 
our continuing presence in Iraq is all about oil.
  Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service reports that we are now 
spending $6.4 billion a month in Iraq--up sharply from last year. 
Including funds committed by the emergency supplemental bill currently 
being debated in the Senate, we have spent a grand total of $320 
billion in Iraq. More than 2,400 American troops have been killed, and 
nearly 18,000 have been wounded. We are in the process of building a 
gigantic new U.S. embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size 
of nearly 80 football fields. This does not look like a U.S. mission 
that plans on winding down or relinquishing its grip on Iraq. To the 
contrary, it is easy to see how ordinary Iraqis view this as the 
behavior of a conquering power that has no intention of leaving. And 
this perception continues to give powerful fuel to the insurgency.

  There is another important reason for redeploying our forces from 
Iraq. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, nor did Saddam Hussein's 
government have any operational links to al Qaeda. By preemptively 
attacking Iraq, we committed a major strategic error in the larger war 
on terror. Simply put: We took our eyes off the ball. We diverted our 
military and intelligence resources away from Afghanistan, away from 
the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. And the consequences are plain to see. It 
is no coincidence that, today, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. 
Nor is it a coincidence that Bin Laden is still at large, still 
directing al Qaeda operations, still threatening us.
  Indeed, by invading Iraq and getting bogged down in a guerilla war, 
there, the United States has given a huge gift to Bin Laden and al 
Qaeda. Not only has it taken the heat off of the terrorists who 
attacked us on 9/11, it has given them a propaganda victory and, as I 
said, a major recruiting tool. The sooner we acknowledge this strategic 
blunder and take steps to reverse it, the sooner we redeploy our 
military and strategic assets to confront our real enemies, the better 
off we will be.
  This resolution is not only about the future of Iraq as a sovereign, 
independent nation; it is also about the unity and security of the 
American people. This misbegotten, misguided, mismanaged war is 
dividing our nation and distracting our government from urgent 
priorities, including health care, education, law enforcement, and, 
yes, a smarter approach to the very real terrorist threats of today and 
tomorrow.
  The men and women of our Armed Forces have sacrificed greatly. It is 
time to allow the political process to go forward, and to demand that 
Iraq's new leaders take responsibility for their country's future. And 
it is time to bring home as many troops as possible, consistent with 
force-protection requirements, and to redeploy as many as necessary to 
successfully pursue Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and to protect our vital 
interests around the world.
  President Bush tells us to be patient. He says we will succeed in 
Iraq. He says Iraq will become a flourishing democracy that will spread 
the flame of freedom across the entire Middle East. But, with due 
respect to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary 
Rumsfeld, they have been consistently wrong--disastrously wrong--in 
their predictions with regard to Iraq. Before the invasion, Vice 
President Cheney said that Iraq had ``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' 
Secretary Rumsfeld said he knew exactly where Saddam was storing his 
weapons of mass destruction. As I noted, 3 long years ago, President 
Bush said that major combat operations were over, mission accomplished. 
They assured us that the war would be self-financed thanks to Iraq's 
oil (in fact, Iraqi oil production has declined by 700,000 barrels a 
day since the invasion). They said, a year ago, that the insurgency was 
``in its last throes.'' I could go on and on with this litany of false 
assertions--some would call them lies--and predictions that turned out 
to be 100 percent wrong.
  So, at this point, President Bush has not only spent his political 
capital, he has squandered the last shred of his credibility when it 
comes to Iraq. Specifically with regard to America's departure from 
Iraq, President Bush has it backwards. He says that our army will stand 
down only as the Iraqi army stands up. The truth is that the Iraqi 
army--and government--will stand up only when it is clear that the 
American military is committed to standing down by the end of this 
year. We can send that message loudly and clearly by passing this-
concurrent resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

                          ____________________