[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1737-E1738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ``IRAQ WATCH''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 14, 2006

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, back in June the Democratic Caucus began a 
series of weekly special orders and floor speeches as a part of our 
ongoing ``Iraq Watch.'' Midway through September, we're still watching, 
and what we're seeing is not encouraging. Other members will elaborate 
on the escalating death toll, the continued drain on our Treasury, and 
our inability to provide even the most basic services that might show 
the Iraqis that our invasion has improved their lives in some way. That 
there were no weapons of mass destruction, no link between Saddam and 
Al Qaeda, and no threat to America in Iraq continues to be demonstrated 
with each new report released and each study published. We know that we 
went in without a plan to manage the country after we toppled the 
government, contrary to military recommendations. Indeed, we now know 
that Secretary Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire staff who kept 
insisting on making some attempt at post-war planning. The generals in 
the field have told us, again, that their mission cannot be 
accomplished without tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand 
or more troops. Yet, according to an official army report referenced in 
the article I include, for the record, there are no more troops to 
send.
  Mr. Speaker, we've been watching as this quagmire gets worse by the 
day. But I can't help wondering if the Republicans are watching the 
same conflict I am. To listen to what the Administration and its 
backers in Congress are saying, one might think that the invasion 
happened just last month, rather than three and a half years ago. You 
might think we were greeted as liberators, or even that we helped the 
Iraqis form a functioning democracy. You might even draw the conclusion 
that fanning the flames in Iraq is somehow, in some way making the 
American people safer.
  Operating on the same flawed assumptions they used to mislead us into 
this mess in the first place, the Administration still has not given us 
an exit plan out of this bloodbath. We've heard plenty of slogans. ``As 
the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down.'' ``Stay the course,'' But, Mr. 
Speaker, empty rhetoric is not a strategy. Hearing these slogans again 
and again, I'm reminded of one definition of insanity: to take the same 
action over and over and expect different results. Our continued 
occupation of Iraq without any kind of strategy or plan to resolve the 
conflict simply makes no sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and horrified when I heard that Vice 
President Cheney went

[[Page E1738]]

on a talk show last weekend and said, and I quote, ``if we had it to do 
over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.'' Is our vice president 
misleading us again, or does he really believe that our Iraq policy is 
working? Is this administration so arrogant, so stubborn, so unwilling 
to admit its mistakes that it wants to continue the occupation of Iraq 
``exactly'' as it has for three and a half years? The Administration's 
continued failure to level with the American people and learn from its 
errors is an affront to all of us, but most especially to the memory of 
the 2,671 brave young men and women who have given their lives for this 
war of choice. The Republicans have shown that they lack the humility 
and the vision to change our disastrous course in the Middle East. 
We've lost not only lives and treasure but our standing in the world as 
a beacon of freedom and democracy. It is time for a new direction.

               [From Washingtonpost.com, Sept. 14, 2006]

                     Why We Can't Send More Troops

                 (By Lawrence J. Korb and Peter Ogden)

       In ``Reinforce Baghdad'' [op-ed, Sept. 12], William Kristol 
     and Rich Lowry argue that the United States needs to deploy 
     ``substantially'' more troops to Iraq to stabilize the 
     country. Aside from the strategic dubiousness of their 
     proposal--Kristol and Lowry's piece might alternatively have 
     been titled ``Reinforcing Failure''--there is a practical 
     obstacle to it that they overlook: Sending more troops to 
     Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation's 
     all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security. This 
     is not a risk our country can afford to take.
       In their search for additional troops and equipment for 
     Iraq, the first place that Kristol and Lowry would have to 
     look is the active Army. But even at existing deployment 
     levels, the signs of strain on the active Army are evident. 
     In July an official report revealed that two-thirds of the 
     active U.S. Army was classified as ``not ready for combat.'' 
     When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-
     third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably 
     ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer 
     alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready 
     brigades in reserve.
       The second place to seek new troops and equipment is the 
     Army National Guard and Reserve. But the news here is, if 
     anything, worse. When asked by reporters to comment on the 
     strain that the active Army was under, the head of the 
     National Guard said that his military branch was ``in an even 
     more dire situation than the active Army. We both have the 
     same symptoms; I just have a higher fever.''
       Already, the stress of Iraq and Afghanistan on our soldiers 
     has been significant: Every available active-duty combat 
     brigade has served at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, 
     and many have served two or three. Likewise, the vast 
     majority of Army National Guardsmen and Reservists have been 
     mobilized since Sept. 11, 2001, some more than once.
       Thus the simple fact is that the only way for Kristol and 
     Lowry to put their new plan into action anytime soon without 
     resorting to a draft--and thereby dismantling the all-
     volunteer Army, which, as the authors themselves would 
     certainly admit, could be strategically disastrous--is by 
     demanding even more from our soldiers by accelerating their 
     training and rotation schedules. While there is no question 
     that the soldiers would respond to more frequent calls to 
     duty, it is doubtful that they would be supplied with proper 
     equipment and training for their mission in the near term. 
     Moreover, the long-term toll on the cost and quality of our 
     troops would be threatened by the added strain.
       First, the equipment shortage that the U.S. Army faces at 
     the moment is making it difficult to train troops even at 
     current levels. The service has been compensating for this 
     $50 billion equipment shortfall by shipping to Iraq some of 
     the equipment that it needs to train nondeployed and reserve 
     units. Increasing the number of deployed troops would 
     compound this readiness problem and leave the Army with 
     little spare capacity to respond to other conflicts around 
     the globe that might demand immediate and urgent action.
       Second, the long-term costs of leaning even more heavily on 
     our ground troops to fight what is an unpopular war will take 
     its toll on the quality of our Army. At present the Army is 
     compelled to offer promotions to an unprecedented number of 
     its personnel to retain them. Some 98 percent of captains 
     were promoted to major this year, and the quality of the next 
     generation of military leaders will suffer if this process is 
     not made more selective once again.
       In addition, even the quadrupling of recruitment bonuses 
     since 2003 has not been enough to attract adequate numbers of 
     talented men and women to meet the Army's personnel goals. 
     Although the Army has accepted more troops with lower 
     aptitude scores and raised its maximum enlistment age, it 
     still must grant waivers to about 1 out of 5 new recruits and 
     has had to cut in half the number who ``wash out'' in basic 
     training.
       While we disagree with Kristol and Lowry's contention that 
     sending more troops to Iraq would bring peace and stability 
     to the country, the U.S. Army and National Guard and Reserve 
     should nevertheless possess the capacity to respond to such a 
     plan or other deployments without undue strain and long-term 
     costs. The solution is to do two things that the Bush 
     administration has not: permanently increase the number of 
     troops in the active Army and fully fund its equipment needs. 
     Let this, not the expenditure of more blood and treasure in 
     Iraq, be the ``courageous act of presidential leadership'' 
     that Kristol and Lowry desire.

                          ____________________