[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 76 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5823-S5828]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to talk about all of the interesting
things going on in Iraq. We saw yesterday the surprise, very important
visit by the President to the new Iraqi Cabinet under Premier Nouri
Kamal al-Maliki. This marks one more significant step in efforts to
bring national unity to Iraq. We all must remember that just a few
short years ago, Iraq was ruled by a murderous tyrant, Saddam Hussein.
According to the Iraqi Survey Group's Charles Dilfer, Iraq was a far
more dangerous place even than we knew. We may not have had the
intelligence right, but the intelligence was focusing on the fact of
how dangerous this place was. Dilfer said that Iraq was overrun with
terrorists, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was then in al-Ansar Islam
and later changed that to al-Qaida in Iraq, the butcher who brazenly
beheaded innocent Americans and others on television.
Dilfer said that Saddam Hussein had the ability to produce chemical
and biological weapons that he had in the past and he was willing and
able to sell them to terrorists who could deliver them to our country.
This milestone, unfortunately, received not enough attention or
appreciation in the media. This is not an isolated example of people
trying to downplay good news in Iraq. As Peter Wehner wrote in the Wall
Street Journal on May 23:
Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass
the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a
unit government despite terrorist attacks and provocations.
Yet, for some critics of the President, these are minor
matters.
[[Page S5824]]
We have seen time and again the focus of our media, and thus, what
many Americans hear is just the killings, the slaughter of innocents in
bombings and suicide attacks. We read the tragic stories of the loss of
Americans. But the real story, when you talk to our troops on the
ground, is how much good they have been doing. They have been
completing their mission. They have been pacifying large areas of the
country. Schools and hospitals are being built. Women are enjoying
newfound freedom. Yet for television, if it bleeds, it leads. That is
the only stuff we hear about.
We are told of massacres and chaos, but we aren't told that millions
of Iraqis who fled to other countries as refugees by the millions in
past years under Saddam Hussein are returning; 1.2 million refugees
have returned to their homes. We rarely see positive stories about
seminaries which, under Saddam, held only a few dozen students and now
have 15,000 pupils from 40 different countries. We don't read about the
increase in the value of the Iraqi dinar, the record number of media
outlets, the tremendous growth in small businesses forming the economic
foundation for Iraq, and the revival of Iraqi agriculture. These
stories were told very well by a well-known Iranian journalist, Amir
Taheri, who published an article in Commentary magazine available on
their Web site talking about how Iraq has improved--a man who has
watched Iraq for 40 years.
I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Real Iraq
(by Amir Taheri)
Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can
be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of
arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is
confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It
is created in several overlapping ways: through television
footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in
suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and
grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists
and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating
about how the war should have been fought in the first place;
by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to
dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the
Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in
Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as
signs of the country's impending or undeclared civil war. Add
to all this the day's alleged scandal or revelation--an outed
CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a
leaked pessimistic assessment and it is no wonder the
American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone
who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.
It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen
to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts
the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced
by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the
difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject;
naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to
the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the
Brookings Institution's much-cited Iraq Index with its
constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-
opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of
the country on the ground.
To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and
commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to
describe the situation have been contaminated by the
increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are
those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq
enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for
George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor
the idea of war that they would banish it from human
discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances,
military power can be used in support of a good cause. But
whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright
misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have
gravely disserved the American people.
For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in
Iraq--a country I first visited in 1968--current reality
there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional
wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraq's future. It helps
to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to
evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi
and Middle Eastern history.
Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I
have relied on several broad measures of social and economic
health to assess the country's condition. Through good times
and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurate--as
accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some
time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive
direction.
The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly
desperate in Iraq--in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and
1990--long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and
Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape. In 1973, for example,
when Saddam Hussein decided to expel all those whose
ancestors had not been Ottoman citizens before Iraq's
creation as a state, some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes
in the space of just six weeks. This was not the temporary
exile of a small group of middle-class professionals and
intellectuals, which is a common enough phenomenon in most
Arab countries. Rather, it was a departure en masse,
affecting people both in small villages and in big cities,
and it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.
Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly
damaging image we have not seen on our television sets--and
we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to
be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have
been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most
conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the
1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis
in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed
down. The oldest such center, at Ashrafiayh in southwest
Iran, was formally shut when its last Iraqi guests returned
home in 2004.
A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement,
but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious
pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever
things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a
trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when
Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against
him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these
cities. Since Saddam's fall, they have been flooded with
visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12
million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the
entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.
Over 3,000 Iraqi clerics have also returned from exile, and
Shiite seminaries, which just a few years ago held no more
than a few dozen pupils, now boast over 15,000 from 40
different countries. This is because Najaf, the oldest center
of Shiite scholarship, is once again able to offer an
alternative to Qom, the Iranian holy city where a radical and
highly politicized version of Shiism is taught. Those wishing
to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of
Shiism now go to Iraq where, unlike in Iran, the seminaries
are not controlled by the government and its secret police.
A third sign, this one of the hard economic variety, is the
value of the Iraqi dinar, especially as compared with the
region's other major currencies. In the final years of Saddam
Hussein's rule, the Iraqi dinar was in free fall; after 1995,
it was no longer even traded in Iran and Kuwait. By contrast,
the new dinar, introduced early in 2004, is doing well
against both the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, having
risen by 17 percent against the former and by 23 percent
against the latter. Although it is still impossible to fix
its value against a basket of international currencies, the
new Iraqi dinar has done well against the U.S. dollar,
increasing in value by almost 18 percent between August 2004
and August 2005. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and
millions of Iranians and Kuwaitis, now treat it as a safe and
solid medium of exchange.
My fourth time-tested sign is the level of activity by
small and medium-sized businesses. In the past, whenever
things have gone downhill in Iraq, large numbers of such
enterprises have simply closed down, with the country's most
capable entrepreneurs decamping to Jordan, Syria, Saudi
Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Iran, and even
Europe and North America. Since liberation, however, Iraq has
witnessed a private-sector boom, especially among small and
medium-sized businesses.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Bank, as well as numerous private studies, the Iraqi
economy has been doing better than any other in the region.
The country's gross domestic product rose to almost $90
billion in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are
available), more than double the output for 2003, and its
real growth rate, as estimated by the IMF, was 52.3 per cent.
In that same period, exports increased by more than $3
billion, while the inflation rate fell to 25.4 percent, down
from 70 percent in 2002. The unemployment rate was halved,
from 60 percent to 30 percent.
Related to this is the level of agricultural activity.
Between 1991 and 2003, the country's farm sector experienced
unprecedented decline, in the end leaving almost the entire
nation dependent on rations distributed by the United Nations
under Oil-for-Food. In the past two years, by contrast, Iraqi
agriculture has undergone an equally unprecedented revival.
Iraq now exports foodstuffs to neighboring countries,
something that has not happened since the 1950s. Much of the
upturn is due to smallholders who, shaking off the
collectivist system imposed by the Baathists, have retaken
control of land that was confiscated decades ago by the
state.
Finally, one of the surest indices of the health of Iraqi
society has always been its readiness to talk to the outside
world. Iraqis are a verbalizing people; when they fall
silent, life is incontrovertibly becoming hard for them.
There have been times, indeed, when one could find scarcely a
single Iraqi, whether in Iraq or abroad, prepared to express
an opinion on anything remotely political. This is what Kanan
Makiya meant when he described Saddam Husseins regime as a
republic of fear.
[[Page S5825]]
Today, again by way of dramatic contrast, Iraqis are
voluble to a fault. Talk radio, television talk-shows, and
Internet blogs are all the rage, while heated debate is the
order of the day in shops, tea-houses, bazaars, mosques,
offices, and private homes. A catharsis is how Luay
Abdulilah, the Iraqi short-story writer and diarist,
describes it. This is one way of taking revenge against
decades of deadly silence. Moreover, a vast network of
independent media has emerged in Iraq, including over 100
privately owned newspapers and magazines and more than two
dozen radio and television stations. To anyone familiar with
the state of the media in the Arab world, it is a truism that
Iraq today is the place where freedom of expression is most
effectively exercised.
That an experienced observer of Iraq with a sense of
history can point to so many positive factors in the
country's present condition will not do much, of course, to
sway the more determined critics of the U.S. intervention
there. They might even agree that the images fed to the
American public show only part of the picture, and that the
news from Iraq is not uniformly bad. But the root of their
opposition runs deeper, to political fundamentals.
Their critique can be summarized in the aphorism that
democracy cannot be imposed by force. It is a view that can
be found among the more sophisticated elements on the Left
and, increasingly, among dissenters on the Right, from
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska to the ex-neoconservative
Francis Fukuyama. As Senator Hagel puts it, You cannot in my
opinion just impose a democratic form of government on a
country with no history and no culture and no tradition of
democracy.
I would tend to agree. But is Iraq such a place? In point
of fact, before the 1958 pro-Soviet military coup detat that
established a leftist dictatorship, Iraq did have its modest
but nevertheless significant share of democratic history,
culture, and tradition. The country came into being through a
popular referendum held in 1921. A constitutional monarchy
modeled on the United Kingdom, it had a bicameral parliament,
several political parties (including the Baath and the
Communists), and periodic elections that led to changes of
policy and government. At the time, Iraq also enjoyed the
freest press in the Arab world, plus the widest space for
debate and dissent in the Muslim Middle East.
To be sure, Baghdad in those days was no Westminster, and,
as the 1958 coup proved, Iraqi democracy was fragile. But
every serious student of contemporary Iraq knows that
substantial segments of the population, from all ethnic and
religious communities, had more than a taste of the modern
worlds democratic aspirations. As evidence, one need only
consult the immense literary and artistic production of
Iraqis both before and after the 1958 coup. Under successor
dictatorial regimes, it is true, the conviction took hold
that democratic principles had no future in Iraq--a
conviction that was responsible in large part for driving
almost five million Iraqis, a quarter of the population, into
exile between 1958 and 2003, just as the opposite conviction
is attracting so many of them and their children back to Iraq
today.
A related argument used to condemn Iraq's democratic
prospects is that it is an artificial country, one that can
be held together only by a dictator. But did any nation-state
fall from the heavens wholly made? All are to some extent
artificial creations, and the U.S. is preeminently so. The
truth is that Iraq--one of the 53 founding countries of the
United Nations--is older than a majority of that
organizations current 198 member states. Within the Arab
League, and setting aside Oman and Yemen, none of the 22
members is older. Two-thirds of the 122 countries regarded as
democracies by Freedom House came into being after Iraq's
appearance on the map.
Critics of the democratic project in Iraq also claim that,
because it is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state,
the country is doomed to despotism, civil war, or
disintegration. But the same could be said of virtually all
Middle Eastern states, most of which are neither multi-ethnic
nor multi-confessional. More important, all Iraqis,
regardless of their ethnic, linguistic, and sectarian
differences, share a sense of national identity--uruqa
(Iraqi-ness)--that has developed over the past eight decades.
A unified, federal state may still come to grief in Iraq--
history is not written in advance--but even should a divorce
become inevitable at some point, a democratic Iraq would be
in a better position to manage it.
What all of this demonstrates is that, contrary to received
opinion, Operation Iraqi Freedom was not an attempt to impose
democracy by force. Rather, it was an effort to use force to
remove impediments to democratization, primarily by deposing
a tyrant who had utterly suppressed a well-established
aspect of the country's identity. It may take years before
we know for certain whether or not post-liberation Iraq
has definitely chosen democracy. But one thing is certain:
without the use of force to remove the Baathist regime,
the people of Iraq would not have had the opportunity even
to contemplate a democratic future.
Assessing the progress of that democratic project is no
simple matter. But, by any reasonable standard, Iraqis have
made extraordinary strides. In a series of municipal polls
and two general elections in the past three years, up to 70
percent of eligible Iraqis have voted. This new orientation
is supported by more than 60 political parties and
organizations, the first genuinely free-trade unions in the
Arab world, a growing number of professional associations
acting independently of the state, and more than 400
nongovernmental organizations representing diverse segments
of civil society. A new constitution, written by Iraqis
representing the full spectrum of political, ethnic, and
religious sensibilities was overwhelmingly approved by the
electorate in a referendum last October.
Iraq's new democratic reality is also reflected in the
vocabulary of politics used at every level of society. Many
new words--accountability, transparency, pluralism, dissent--
have entered political discourse in Iraq for the first time.
More remarkably, perhaps, all parties and personalities
currently engaged in the democratic process have committed
themselves to the principle that power should be sought, won,
and lost only through free and fair elections.
These democratic achievements are especially impressive
when set side by side with the declared aims of the enemies
of the new Iraq, who have put up a determined fight against
it. Since the country's liberation, the jihadists and
residual Baathists have killed an estimated 23,000 Iraqis,
mostly civilians, in scores of random attacks and suicide
operations. Indirectly, they have caused the death of
thousands more, by sabotaging water and electricity services
and by provoking sectarian revenge attacks.
But they have failed to translate their talent for mayhem
and murder into political success. Their campaign has not
succeeded in appreciably slowing down, let alone stopping,
the country's democratization. Indeed, at each step along the
way, the jihadists and Baathists have seen their self-
declared objectives thwarted.
After the invasion, they tried at first to prevent the
formation of a Governing Council, the expression of Iraq's
continued existence as a sovereign nation-state. They managed
to murder several members of the council, including its
president in 2003, but failed to prevent its formation or to
keep it from performing its task in the interim period. The
next aim of the insurgents was to stop municipal elections.
Their message was simple: candidates and voters would be
killed. But, once again, they failed: thousands of men and
women came forward as candidates and more than 1.5 million
Iraqis voted in the localities where elections were held.
The insurgency made similar threats in the lead-up to the
first general election, and the result was the same. Despite
killing 36 candidates and 148 voters, they failed to derail
the balloting, in which the number of voters rose to more
than 8 million. Nor could the insurgency prevent the writing
of the new democratic constitution, despite a campaign of
assassination against its drafters. The text was ready in
time and was submitted to and approved by a referendum,
exactly as planned. The number of voters rose yet again,
to more than 9 million.
What of relations among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds the
focus of so much attention of late? For almost three years,
the insurgency worked hard to keep the Arab Sunni community,
which accounts for some 15 percent of the population, out of
the political process. But that campaign collapsed when
millions of Sunnis turned out to vote in the constitutional
referendum and in the second general election, which saw
almost 11 million Iraqis go to the polls. As I write, all
political parties representing the Arab Sunni minority have
joined the political process and have strong representation
in the new parliament. With the convening of that parliament,
and the nomination in April of a new prime minister and a
three-man presidential council, the way is open for the
formation of a broad-based government of national unity to
lead Iraq over the next four years.
As for the insurgency's effort to foment sectarian violence
strategy first launched in earnest toward the end of 2005
this too has run aground. The hope here was to provoke a
full-scale war between the Arab Sunni minority and the Arab
Shiites who account for some 60 percent of the population.
The new strategy, like the ones previously tried, has
certainly produced many deaths. But despite countless cases
of sectarian killings by so-called militias, there is still
no sign that the Shiites as a whole will acquiesce in the
role assigned them by the insurgency and organize a concerted
campaign of nationwide retaliation.
Finally, despite the impression created by relentlessly
dire reporting in the West, the insurgency has proved unable
to shut down essential government services. Hundreds of
teachers and schoolchildren have been killed in incidents
including the beheading of two teachers in their classrooms
this April and horrific suicide attacks against school buses.
But by September 2004, most schools across Iraq and virtually
all universities were open and functioning. By September
2005, more than 8.5 million Iraqi children and young people
were attending school or university, an all-time record in
the nation's history.
A similar story applies to Iraq's clinics and hospitals.
Between October 2003 and January 2006, more than 80 medical
doctors and over 400 nurses and medical auxiliaries were
murdered by the insurgents. The jihadists also raided several
hospitals, killing ordinary patients in their beds. But, once
again, they failed in their objectives. By January 2006, all
of Iraq's 600 state-owned hospitals and clinics were in full
operation, along with dozens of new ones set up by the
private sector since liberation.
[[Page S5826]]
Another of the insurgency's strategic goals was to bring
the Iraqi oil industry to a halt and to disrupt the export of
crude. Since July 2003, Iraq's oil infrastructure has been
the target of more than 3,000 attacks and attempts at
sabotage. But once more the insurgency has failed to achieve
its goals. Iraq has resumed its membership in the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and has
returned to world markets as a major oil exporter. According
to projections, by the end of 2006 it will be producing its
full OPEC quota of 2.8 million barrels a day.
The Baathist remnant and its jihadist allies resemble a
gambler who wins a heap of chips at a roulette table only to
discover that he cannot exchange them for real money at the
front desk. The enemies of the new Iraq have succeeded in
ruining the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis, but over
the past three years they have advanced their overarching
goals, such as they are, very little. Instead they have
been militarily contained and politically defeated again
and again, the beneficiary has been Iraqi democracy.
None of this means that the new Iraq is out of the woods.
Far from it. Democratic success still requires a great deal
of patience, determination, and luck. The U.S.-led coalition,
its allies, and partners have achieved most of their major
political objectives, but that achievement remains under
threat and could be endangered if the U.S., for whatever
reason, should decide to snatch a defeat from the jaws of
victory.
The current mandate of the U.S.-led coalition runs out at
the end of this year, and it is unlikely that Washington and
its allies will want to maintain their military presence at
current levels. In the past few months, more than half of the
103 bases used by the coalition have been transferred to the
new Iraqi army. The best guess is that the number of U.S. and
coalition troops could be cut from 140,000 to 25,000 or
30,000 by the end of 2007.
One might wonder why, if the military mission has been so
successful, the U.S. still needs to maintain a military
presence in Iraq for at least another two years. There are
three reasons for this.
The first is to discourage Iraqs predatory neighbors,
notably Iran and Syria, which might wish to pursue their own
agendas against the new government in Baghdad. Iran has
already revived some claims under the Treaties of Erzerum
(1846), according to which Tehran would enjoy a droit de
regard over Shiite shrines in Iraq. In Syria, some in that
countrys ruling circles have invoked the possibility of
annexing the area known as Jazirah, the so-called Sunni
triangle, in the name of Arab unity. For its part, Turkey is
making noises about the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which gave
it a claim to the oilfields of northern Iraq. All of these
pretensions need to be rebuffed.
The second reason for extending Americas military presence
is political. The U.S. is acting as an arbiter among Iraqs
various ethnic and religious communities and political
factions. It is, in a sense, a traffic cop, giving Iraqis a
green or red light when and if needed. It is important that
the U.S. continue performing this role for the first year or
two of the newly elected parliament and government.
Finally, the U.S. and its allies have a key role to play in
training and testing Iraqs new army and police. Impressive
success has already been achieved in that field.
Nevertheless, the new Iraqi army needs at least another year
or two before it will have developed adequate logistical
capacities and learned to organize and conduct operations
involving its various branches.
But will the U.S. stay the course? Many are betting against
it. The Baathists and jihadists, their prior efforts to
derail Iraqi democracy having come to naught, have now pinned
their hopes on creating enough chaos and death to persuade
Washington of the futility of its endeavors. In this, they
have the tacit support not only of local Arab and Muslim
despots rightly fearful of the democratic genie but of all
those in the West whose own incessant theme has been the
certainty of American failure. Among Bush-haters in the U.S.,
just as among anti-Americans around the world, predictions
of civil war in Iraq, of spreading regional hostilities,
and of a revived global terrorism are not about to cease
any time soon.
But more sober observers should understand the real balance
sheet in Iraq. Democracy is succeeding. Moreover, thanks to
its success in Iraq, there are stirrings elsewhere in the
region. Beyond the much-publicized electoral concessions
wrung from authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
there is a new democratic discourse to be heard. Nationalism
and pan-Arabism, yesterday's hollow rallying cries, have
given way to a big idea of a very different kind. Debate and
dissent are in the air where there was none before a
development owing, in significant measure, to the U.S.
campaign in Iraq and the brilliant if still checkered Iraqi
response.
The stakes, in short, could not be higher. This is all the
more reason to celebrate, to build on, and to consolidate
what has already been accomplished. Instead of railing
against the Bush administration, America's elites would do
better, and incidentally display greater self-respect, to
direct their wrath where it properly belongs; at those
violent and unrestrained enemies of democracy in Iraq who
are, in truth, the enemies of democracy in America as well,
and of everything America has ever stood for.
Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not;
none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and
critics to describe today's Iraq, the only one that has a
ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is
messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to
declare a baby unworthy of life?
Mr. BOND. This follows closely the story we found when on a codel
with my colleagues, Senators Bayh and Obama, in Iraq in January. We
talked to our people, military and civilians. We had a great meeting
with President Talabani and top-elected Sunni and Shi'a officials at
the time who all pledged they were going to work together for a unity
government.
Now that the President and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have formed
a Cabinet, this is one more significant step. It is a big step, and it
has been completely overshadowed by the killing of al-Zarqawi. But for
the long term, this formation of a government is one more step that is
vitally important. I am delighted the President was there to highlight
it.
It doesn't mean the violence is over. The killing of al-Zarqawi was
widely celebrated by our troops abroad and at home because they knew
this ruthless butcher was the face, the media darling of al-Qaida in
Iraq. There is a supreme irony that he went out with his spiritual
adviser. Good time to have your spiritual adviser with you. For al-
Zarqawi, he and his spiritual adviser are going to find out at the same
time just how good the spiritual advice Sheik Rahman gave him was.
We know his loss will be a significant loss because of his ability to
play the media with his ruthless killings. But we know he will be
replaced. They are bringing up another successor to him already. Let us
hope that successor has the same short shelf life that al-Qaida's
operation commanders, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Faraj al-
Libi, and Hamza Rabia, have had. They have all been captured or killed.
We hope we will be able to continue that effort.
We hear some of our colleagues from the other side saying what a few
in the media are saying, that we need to bring our troops home
immediately. We have sorrowful parents who are very much concerned
about their children going into harm's way. They want them brought home
immediately. Let me speak to that directly. As a father of a son who
was in Iraq and is preparing to go back, I can tell you that it is not
without a good bit of concern that we see our young people going into
harm's way. But we are very proud of them. We are very proud of them to
know that they are willing to stand up and take the risk of going to
war to defend our freedom and peace and security in the world. They are
doing a good job. Yes each death of an American soldier or marine or
airman is a tragedy. As a parent, you suck in a little wind and say a
prayer when you hear about them. But these brave young men and women
who are volunteers go there because they know they have a higher
mission. By carrying the fight to the terrorists, they help make our
country safer.
It is no accident that our country has not had a major attack since
September 11, not only because of homeland security but because of the
strong efforts we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq to disrupt
terrorist strongholds, the safe havens for terrorists.
Our young men and women over there are in harm's way. But they are
not afraid of taking the risk of war. Let me tell you what they really
fear. They fear that a lack of political will in this body and in the
United States will cause a premature withdrawal of our troops before
the Iraqi Government has adequate military and police in place to
provide the security that country needs to continue to grow and
flourish and be safe from terrorism. They worry that if we bring our
troops back before the Iraqi military and police are able to secure the
country, there will be chaos--chaos which fosters the rejuvenation of
terrorist groups, chaos which will permit a form of state-sponsored
terrorism, preparation of chemical and biological weapons that could be
used against us, so the next 9/11 might be with a weapon of mass
destruction. They know there is a danger that violence between the
factions, the Shi'a and the Sunnis, could engulf Iraq and maybe the
rest of the Middle East.
They want to complete their mission. They didn't go there and take
the risk and make the sacrifice and see some of
[[Page S5827]]
their colleagues lose their lives and have to take inventories of their
personal belongings and send them home. Yet they fear the lack of
political will to continue and succeed in the necessary battle more
than they fear the dangers of the battlefield. If we walk away, the
sacrifices of these brave men and women will have been in vain. We have
to complete the transformation and the transition in Iraq to a
functioning government of national unity, able to defend the country
against terrorists and insurgents.
I hear some of my colleagues talking about how tragic the activities
were in Haditha. They have seized on reports of horrible incidents.
They are presuming the American soldiers are guilty without having a
hearing. They want to set up a 9/11-type commission. What a tragedy it
would be if we were to follow the political game plan to make guilty
parties out of soldiers who have not even had their day in court in
order to win political points against the Department of Defense and the
President.
As we all well know, these events will be thoroughly investigated. If
there was wrongdoing, it will be prosecuted. We prosecuted the out-of-
line soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib. We don't tolerate those things.
We don't tolerate misconduct. Our military justice system will
prosecute any who are guilty. But please, let us not jump to the
conclusion that they are presumed guilty because of reports of
outrageous actions. There are other sides to the story. Let the normal
process work. There could be hearings in the appropriate committees,
the Armed Services Committee or the Appropriations Committee, if they
are warranted. But to set up another commission now is a dangerous
political game and one I hope we will not accept. Instead of demanding
more commissions, we should be demanding that the facts come out. If
any wrongdoing took place, those who did it will be punished
accordingly.
There are those who want to continue to take cheap shots at the
administration over anything that goes wrong in the war. When you have
wars, unfortunately, things go wrong. There is no guaranteed success
rate. It is not an unbroken path of success. We need to look at what
went on in Haditha. The negative news reports will continue, and we
expect the news media, when there are negative things, to report on
them. But we would hope they would also report on the positive things
that are done. If we had followed the advice of all the naysayers
earlier this year who dominate our television with their defeatist
political rhetoric, we would not have seen free elections in Iraq, a
unity government, or the elimination of al-Zarqawi. He would be running
free, plotting his next attack and seeking to reach out beyond Iraq to
neighbors, possibly in the United States. Thankfully, we did not pull
out of Iraq. Iraq is a much different place, a much more hopeful place
because America and its brave men and women are committed to making the
world a safer place.
I sincerely and deeply urge my colleagues not to let our troops down,
not to bring them home because parents are concerned about them. We
value and honor their service. Let them do their jobs and let the
process of the military justice system go forward before we jump to the
conclusion that American soldiers are guilty because we don't happen to
agree with the war or the efforts they are making.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed for no more than 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, like my colleague from Missouri, I come
today to address the Senate and my fellow countrymen on the
developments in Iraq and to speak to the American public about the war
and our efforts in the Middle East.
Before I begin, let me quickly state that, like many Americans across
the country, I have and will maintain steadfast and strong support for
our men and women in uniform. Also, like many Americans across the
country, I, too, over the last good many months have had moments of
doubt regarding the progress in Iraq and the overwhelming challenges
that the Iraqis and Americans and coalition forces have faced there.
When I go out to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with our young men and
women who are having new parts put on their bodies as a result of the
explosions and bombings in Iraq, and I feel their spirit and desire to
continue to serve and I speak to them of the mission they were involved
in, I come back to my office on Capitol Hill more dedicated than ever
to assure that these young men and women are allowed to continue to
work to finish their mission.
However, seeing through the fog of war, seeing through the
interpretation by the liberal media is a frustration that most
Americans are consumed with at this moment. Only the bad is reported
and rarely the good. But the other day something good happened that
could not be denied by the media of this world. That was the
annihilation of Zarqawi and the unquestionable proof that intelligence
and informants have the al-Qaida on the run in Iraq. The liberal media
could not step away from the reality of that message. Two 500-pound
bombs delivered it loudly around the world. While it says a lot about
our own intelligence, it is my opinion and I am told it says a great
deal about the Iraqi people who are fed up with the way they are being
treated by the insurgent forces in Iraq, and many of those forces are
from outside their country.
Some in this country, and even some in this body, are saying: Well,
that was just then, and we have to deal with now and into the immediate
future. Let's get out of there, let's cut and run. It is time we bring
our soldiers home.
I suggest that it may be time to adjust tactics. They have a new
government in Iraq. It is now whole, it is stood up, it is running, and
it is putting its own people out in front in defense of its country,
both in the military and in the civilian police. Now is not the time to
leave this fledgling new country standing alone. Our tactics may change
and we may step back a bit, but I believe we have to be there to
continue to strengthen and allow them to grow. The message of turning
away from the recent successes and turning away from Iraqi men and
women and children who are on the verge of freedom for the first time
sends a phenomenal ill-fated doomsday message to the Iraqi people and
speaks loudly to the world. And, most importantly, it sends a strong
message to the terrorists that all they have to do is be patient, take
their losses along the way, because America's will will melt and we
will leave.
First and foremost, if we cannot and won't finish the job we set out
to do, we will forever question our own future, and the people around
the world will question our resolve. Simply put, we are at, I believe,
a defining moment not only in the future of Iraq, but in the future of
our own Nation with the message we send around the world. Therefore, it
is imperative that this country and the people of this country stand up
and send a message to the terrorists and to the Iraqi people that we
will not be deterred, we will finish our job in cooperation with the
Iraqi Government. I believe that is the message our President delivered
in the last 24 hours as he flew to Iraq to visit with the new
Government and our troops.
Right now, there is a new al-Qaida leader somewhere in Iraq. I will
bet he is not sleeping at night. I will bet he is running from house to
house. My guess is that his immediates around him are doing the same
thing because we receive now thousands and thousands of informant
messages, and this man, while he has a new title of leader, is being
hunted by a young man from Twin Falls, ID, or from Manchester, England,
or from Kirkut. Those are the realities of war.
That is why we stand on the Senate floor talking on behalf of this
country's future and the men and women who wear our uniform and the
mission we have sent them to do.
Removing U.S. forces, that are standing side-by-side with Iraqi and
coalition forces, will effectively and instantly remove the fear that
we have now embedded within al-Qaida members now on the run in Iraq.
I am certain that those Members in this body advocating for the U.S.
to pull out fully understand and appreciate the role foreign assistance
played in helping our colonies become the great Republic it is today.
Without
[[Page S5828]]
French military and economic assistance the will of the American
Revolutionaries would have been broken long before our final push was
fought to gain a free, independent, and sovereign republic.
To cut and run today, especially in light of our recent successes,
would be equivalent the U.S. colonies fighting without French
assistance.
Simply put, without foreign military assistance to this country none
of us would be standing here today in the world's greatest deliberative
body and the bell of liberty would never have rang.
So, today, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to step
up, look in the mirror, and recall how our very own country was
established. Failure to stay the course on this endeavor is short-
sighted, hypocritical, and goes squarely against the principles and the
very reason this country was conceived and founded upon.
Mr. President, we have much to be thankful for today. As such, I urge
my colleagues to help give the Iraqi people what this country so
desired in 1776, freedom.
I yield the floor and 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________