[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.

                          ____________________