[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.

                          ____________________