[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10648-S10649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have listened intently over the past
few weeks as the President, members of his Cabinet, and Members of this
Chamber have discussed Iraq, the war on terror, and ways to strengthen
our national security.
For years, now, I have opposed this administration's policies in Iraq
as a diversion from the fight against terrorism. But I have never been
so sure of the fact that this administration misunderstands the nature
of the threats that face our country. I am also more sure than ever and
it gives me no pleasure to say this--that this President is incapable
of developing and executing a national security strategy that will make
our country safer.
As we marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11 this month, we recalled
that tragic day and the lives that were lost in New York, at the
Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania. And we all recalled the anger and
resolve we felt to fight back against those that attacked us. This body
was united and was supportive of the administration's decision to
attack al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. No one disputed that
decision.
That is because our top priority immediately following 9/11 was
defeating the terrorists that attacked us. The American people expected
us to devote most of our national security resources to that effort,
and rightly so. But unfortunately, 5 years later, our efforts to defeat
al-Qaida and its supporters have gone badly astray. The administration
took its eye off the ball. Instead of focusing on the pursuit of al-
Qaida in Afghanistan, it launched a politically motivated diversion
into Iraq--a country with no connection to the terrorists who attacked
us. In fact, the President's decision to invade Iraq has emboldened the
terrorists and has played into their hands by allowing them to falsely
suggest that our fight against terrorism is anti-Muslim and anti-Arab,
when nothing could be further from the truth.
But instead of recognizing that our current policy in Iraq is
damaging our national security, the President continues to argue that
the best way to fight terrorists is to stay in Iraq. He even quotes
terrorists to bolster his argument that Iraq is the central front in
the war on terror. Just recently, he told the country that Osama bin
Laden has proclaimed that the ``third world war is raging'' in Iraq''
and that this is ``a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.''
Instead of letting the terrorists decide where we will fight them,
the President should remember what he said on September 14, just 2 days
after 9/11. He said, and I quote, ``[t]his conflict was begun on the
timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of
our choosing.'' The President was right when he said that, and he is
wrong to suggest that we must stay in Iraq because that is where the
terrorists want to fight us. We must fight the terrorists where they
don't want to fight us--and that means engaging in a global campaign,
not focusing all of our resources on one country.
The way to win a war against global terrorist networks is not to keep
140,000 American troops in Iraq indefinitely. We will weaken, not
strengthen, our national security by continuing to pour a
disproportionate level of our military and intelligence and fiscal
resources into Iraq.
Unfortunately, because of our disproportionate focus on Iraq, we are
not using enough of our military and intelligence capabilities for
defeating al-Qaida and other terrorist networks around the world. While
we have been distracted in Iraq, terrorist networks have developed new
capabilities and found new sources of support throughout the world. We
have seen terrorist attacks in India, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Indonesia, Spain, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The administration has
failed to adequately address the terrorist safe haven that has
[[Page S10649]]
existed for years in Somalia or the recent instability that has
threatened to destabilize the region. And resurgent Taliban forces are
contributing to growing levels of instability in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the U.S. presence in Iraq is being used as a recruiting
tool for terrorist organizations from around the world. In Indonesia,
home to historically moderate Islamic communities, conservative
religious groups are becoming increasingly hostile towards the United
States. In countries like Thailand, Nigeria, Mali, the Philippines, and
elsewhere, militant groups are using U.S. policies in Iraq to fuel
hatred towards the West.
The war in Iraq was, and remains, a war of choice. Some in this body,
even those who have questioned the initial rationale for the war,
suggest that we have no option but to remain in Iraq indefinitely. That
argument is mistaken. We do have a choice, and that is whether we
continue to devote so much of our resources to Iraq or whether we
devote our resources to waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and
its allies. We cannot do both.
If we choose to stay the course in Iraq, that means keeping large
numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq indefinitely. It means
continuing to ask our brave service members to somehow provide a
military solution to a political problem, one that will require the
will of the Iraqi people to resolve. Our military has achieved its
mission in Iraq. Until we redeploy from Iraq, our very presence there
will continue to generate new terrorists from around the world that
will come to Iraq to attack U.S. troops.
Staying the course also means that our military's readiness levels
will continue to deteriorate. It means that a disproportionate level of
our military resources will continue to be focused on Iraq while
terrorist networks strengthen their efforts worldwide.
The fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, too, will
continue to suffer, as it has since we invaded Iraq. If we stay the
course in Iraq, we won't be able to finish the job in Afghanistan.
Finally, if this were our Nation's choice, the safety of our country
would be uncertain, at best. Terrorist organizations and insurgencies
around the world will continue to use our presence in Iraq as rallying
cry and recruiting slogan. Terrorist networks will continue to increase
their sophistication and reach as our military capabilities are
strained in Iraq.
I think we can see why this approach plays into the terrorists'
hands--and even why bin Laden might suggest that the U.S. presence in
Iraq is beneficial to his cause.
Of course, staying the course isn't a necessity.
The alternative is to establish a new national security strategy that
addresses the wide-ranging nature of the threats that face our country.
This second choice will require replacing our current self-defeating
national security strategy with a comprehensive one to defeat the
terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11. It will require a
realignment of our finite resources. And it will also require a change
in the way we view and discuss the threat to our country. We must
reject phrases like ``Islamic fascism,'' which are inaccurate and
potentially offensive to peace-loving Muslims around the world. And we
need to understand that there is no ``central front'' in this war, as
the President argues.
The threats to our country are global, unlike any we have encountered
in the past. Our enemy is not a state with clearly defined borders. We
must respond instead to what is a loose network of terrorist
organizations that do not function according to a strict hierarchy. Our
enemy isn't one organization. It is a series of highly mobile, diffuse
entities that operate largely beyond the reach of our conventional
warfighting techniques. The only way to defeat them is to adapt our
strategy and our capabilities and to engage the enemy on our terms and
by using our advantages.
We have proven that we can not do that with our current approach in
Iraq.
This choice--this new strategy--would require redeploying from Iraq
and recalibrating our military posture overseas. It would require
finishing the job in Afghanistan with increased resources, troops, and
equipment. It would require a new form of diplomacy, scrapping the
``transformational diplomacy'' this administration has used to offend,
push away, and ultimately alienate so many of our friends and allies,
and replacing it with an aggressive, multilateral approach that would
leverage the strength of our friends to defeat our common enemies.
It would also require the infusion of new capabilities and strength
for our Armed Forces. By freeing up our special forces assets and
redeploying our military power from Iraq, we would be better positioned
to handle global threats and future contingencies. Our current state of
readiness is unacceptable and must be repaired. Our National Guard,
too, must be capable of responding to natural disasters and future
contingencies.
Finally, this new approach would make our country safer. It would
enable our Government to spend time addressing the wide range of
threats our country faces. It would free up strategic capacity to deal
with Iran, North Korea, and the Middle East, and to provide real
leadership internationally against other enemies we all face, like
poverty, HIV/AIDS, and corruption.
In sum, it would help return the United States to a place of
preeminence in the world and would give us the opportunity to address
the very real threats we face in the 21st century.
The bottom line is that we cannot afford to continue down the path
the President has set forth. We face real threats from al-Qaida and
other terrorist organizations. Accordingly, we need to strengthen our
military, diplomatic, and intelligence capabilities. And we need clear-
sighted leadership with policies aimed at confronting that threat and
with the credibility to mobilize the support of the American people and
the world.
This isn't a choice, it is a necessity.
____________________