[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11698-S11700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this past Wednesday, Washington felt a 
little like Hollywood. In fact, not many blockbuster movies have gotten 
the kind of massive press and critical acclaim that we saw yesterday 
for the release of the Iraq Study Group report. Official Washington 
rushed to embrace the report--understandably, since it reflected the 
same flawed mindset that led so many here to embrace the war in Iraq 4 
years ago. Unfortunately, that same mindset is now what is keeping too 
many here from fixing an Iraq policy that many now agree is badly 
flawed.
  The administration still believes that Iraq is the be-all and end-all 
of our national security. So, too, does most of Washington. 
Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change 
that flawed mind-set. I respect the serious efforts of the group to 
correct the administration's misguided policies, and the report has 
some valuable ideas. But the very name, the ``Iraq Study Group'' says 
it all. We need recommendations on how to address Iraq, but those 
recommendations must be guided by our top national security priority--
defeating terrorist networks operating in dozens of countries around 
the world. We can't just look at Iraq in isolation--we need to also be 
looking at Somalia and Afghanistan and the many other places around the 
world where we face grave and growing threats.
  The report doesn't adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader 
national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by 
our top national security priority--defeating the terrorist network 
that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. Unless we set a serious 
timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to 
effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a 
regrettable example of ``official Washington'' missing the point. The 
report may have gotten a glowing reception at its DC premiere, but I 
don't think it will get the same response once it goes on the road. 
Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to 
tell them that the policy in Iraq isn't working, but the American 
people are way ahead of this report. It has been just over a month 
since the American people told us clearly what they were thinking about 
Iraq. They recognize that we need a timetable to bring the troops out 
of Iraq. They know that a flexible timetable is needed to preserve our 
military readiness, to prevent more unnecessary and tragic American 
casualties in Iraq and to protect our national security. They are the 
ones we should be listening to--not the insiders, politicians and 
think-tankers who believe they have cornered the market on wisdom.
  Unfortunately, the focus of this commission, and the amount of 
attention being given to this single report, show just how myopic this 
administration and Members of Congress are. The long-running debate 
here in Washington about whether and when to redeploy our troops from 
Iraq always centers on the situation on the ground there, and whether a 
drawdown of troops will make it better or worse. Those are important 
considerations. But even more important are the issues that are largely 
ignored--the fact that our commitment of troops and resources in Iraq 
is dangerously weakening our national security and the opportunity cost 
of ignoring the growing threats elsewhere in the world.
  As the administration and Congress mull over the Iraq Study Group's 
recommendations, it comes as no surprise that the group's work includes 
what the New York Times had called a ``classic Washington compromise.'' 
But we need much more than a compromise to fix our national security 
policy. We need a dramatic and immediate change of course in Iraq--a 
timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can refocus on the 
terrorist networks that threaten the safety of the American people.
  The war in Iraq was, and remains, a war of choice. The administration 
has tried to create a false choice, between staying in Iraq with no end 
date in sight and ``cutting and running.'' They want us to believe that 
Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, just as

[[Page S11699]]

they wanted us to believe their trumped-up reasons for going to war in 
the first place. They want us to believe that any option besides 
staying the course is going to be detrimental to our national security. 
That argument is mistaken.
  The real choice is this: continuing to devote so much of our 
resources to Iraq, or devoting some of those resources to waging a 
global campaign against al-Qaida and its allies. We cannot do both.
  The administration's choice--to maintain a massive and seemingly 
indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq--is harmful both to our efforts in 
Iraq, as well as to our global efforts to defeat the terrorists that 
attacked us on 9/11.
  Our indefinite presence in Iraq is destabilizing and potentially 
damaging Iraqi efforts to rebuild their government and their country. 
That is not the fault of our brave troops--it's the fault of the 
policymakers here in Washington, who don't recognize that our presence 
is generating instability in Iraq, and that, unless we make it clear 
that we intend to leave, and to leave soon, our presence is more 
harmful than it is helpful.
  The Administration's approach in Iraq is a diversion from the global 
fight against terrorism. Iraq isn't, and never was, the central front 
in the war on terrorism. 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 also failed to adequately address the 
terrorist safe haven that has existed for years in Somalia and the 
recent instability that has threatened to destabilize the region. And 
resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida 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 U.S. 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.

  This administration's choices have been devastating to our national 
security. Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group's report doesn't do 
enough to put Iraq into a global context. It doesn't recognize the 
extent to which our disproportionate efforts in Iraq are damaging our 
national security. And, even where the report suggests the toll that 
Iraq is taking on our ability to address global threats, it ends up 
falling back into the same Iraq-centric mindset that we need to change. 
For example, the report says that ``the United States should provide 
additional political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan, 
including resources that might become available as combat forces are 
moved out of Iraq.'' But then it goes on to recommend that ``The most 
highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel should be 
assigned to'' teams imbedded in Iraqi battalions and brigades. Those 
are the very people we need in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere we 
face significant threats to our national security. It was the 
administration's decision to move resources from Afghanistan to Iraq 
that contributed to the resurgence of the Taliban there--we can't 
afford to perpetuate that mistake.
  Elsewhere, the report recommends that the DNI and Secretary of 
Defense ``should devote significantly greater analytic resources to the 
task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq.'' 
The problem is that the report doesn't consider the relative importance 
of directing more intelligence resources to understanding Iraq as 
opposed to al-Qaida and its affiliates around the world, Afghanistan, 
Somalia and other critically important regions and concerns. So it came 
up with a recommendation that doesn't serve our overall national 
security interests. Implementing this recommendation at the expense of 
fighting terrorism and dealing with other terrorist safe havens around 
the world will make us less safe.
  We need to return to the post-9/11 mindset. In the days after 9/11, 
we all shared an anger at and a resolve to fight back against those who 
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 diversion into Iraq--a country that 
had no connection to the 9/11 plot or al-Qaida. 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 a few months ago, 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:

       [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 now wrong to 
suggest that we must stay in Iraq because that is where the terrorists 
say they want to fight us. al-Qaida and its allies are operating around 
the globe. We must engage in a global campaign to defeat them, not 
focus all of our resources on one country.
  The way to win a war against global terrorist networks is not to keep 
over 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, the administration has yet to understand that 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 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 war-fighting 
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't do that with our current approach in 
Iraq.
  By redeploying our troops from Iraq, we can pursue a new national 
security strategy. We can finish the job in Afghanistan with increased 
resources, troops, and equipment. We can develop 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.
  And we can repair and infuse new capabilities and strength into our 
armed forces. By freeing up our Special Forces assets and redeploying 
our military power from Iraq, we will 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.

[[Page S11700]]

  This new national security strategy will make our country safer. It 
will enable our government to fully address the wide range of threats 
our country faces. It will free up strategic capacity to deal with 
Iran, North Korea, and the Middle East, and to provide real leadership 
internationally against other enemies that we all face, like poverty, 
HIV/AIDS, and corruption.
  In sum, it will help return the United States to a place of 
preeminence in the world and will give us the opportunity to address 
the very real threats we face in the 21st century. While the Iraq Study 
Group has generated some good ideas and choices, it doesn't put Iraq in 
the context of a broader national security strategy.
  We face an unprecedented threat to our national security, and we must 
respond with much more than a classic Washington compromise. We need to 
refocus on fighting and defeating the terrorist network that attacked 
this country on September 11, 2001, and that means realizing that the 
war in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida and its global 
affiliates. It never was and it never will be. That global fight can't 
be won if we let Iraq continue to dominate our security strategy and 
drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time. The 
President's Iraq-centric policies are preventing us from effectively 
engaging serious threats around the world. We must change course in 
Iraq, and we must change course now.
  This isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

                          ____________________