[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S314-S317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tonight President Bush will address our 
Nation. The subject is one that is on the minds of virtually every 
American. It is Iraq. According to the accounts in the press, President 
Bush will be announcing that he will be increasing the number of U.S. 
forces in Iraq, perhaps by 20,000 troops.
  If these news accounts are correct, that means an additional 20,000 
American service men and women will be sent into harm's way or ordered 
to remain there for longer tours of duty.
  This morning on television, on CNN, they interviewed the families of 
some soldiers who are now headed for their third tour of duty. There 
was a sad, heartbreaking interview with a mother--her two small 
children nearby, and her soldier husband sitting just a chair away. She 
said she could not be prouder of her husband. She considered him a hero 
and a brave man and that he would answer the call of duty whenever. But 
she said, in her words: It is just so frustrating trying to raise this 
family with my husband being called to duty over and over and over 
again.

  Our hearts go out to those families. Our prayers are with them and 
the troops as this decision is made to escalate this war in Iraq, to 
raise the number of troops from 144,000 to possibly 164,000 or higher.
  These troops follow these orders because they are the best and the 
bravest. They march off to war, risk their lives, away from those they 
love because they are sworn to protect this great Nation. We can never 
thank them enough for what they are doing. Every moment of debate that 
we have on the floor of this Senate about the policy of our Government 
toward Iraq should not diminish nor detract from our great debt of 
gratitude to these men and women and their families.
  I will be joining a number of my colleagues this afternoon as we sit 
with the President for a final briefing before his decision. Sadly, I 
am afraid that decision has already been made. It is the wrong 
decision. For reasons I do not understand, President Bush has reversed 
a position which he took early on. His position was that he would heed 
the advice and counsel of the men and women in uniform, of the generals 
in the field, of those who were in command and could see the actual 
battle on a day-to-day basis. The President told us, over and over 
again, he would only dispatch as many troops as they asked for. But 
clearly that has changed.
  General Abizaid, who was the leader, the commanding general of 
CENTCOM, who oversaw Iraq and Afghanistan, told us in November he saw 
no reason for more U.S. troops. Let me read what General Abizaid said 
in testimony before Congress just weeks ago:

       I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the 
     core commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And 
     I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in 
     more American troops now, does it add considerably to our 
     ability to achieve success in Iraq?

  General Abizaid went on to say:

       And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want 
     the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon 
     us to do this work.

  General Abizaid said:

       I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future.

  Those are the words of the commanding general in Iraq a few weeks 
ago. Those were words which the President told the American people 
repeatedly would be his guidance in making decisions about whether to 
send more troops into battle. Those are words which the President 
tonight will ignore and reject.
  There is a sad reality. The sad reality is this: 20,000 American 
soldiers, too few to end this civil war in Iraq; too many American 
soldiers to lose. I do not understand the President's logic. I do not 
understand how 20,000 troops could significantly make any difference.
  Will there be a time line for these troops? If this is, in effect, a 
surge, as the White House has characterized it over and over again, is 
it temporary in nature? Well, if it is a surge that is temporary in 
nature, it betrays another position taken by the White House. How many 
times have we been told we cannot talk about an orderly

[[Page S315]]

withdrawal from Iraq or redeployment? How many times have we been told 
we do not talk about when we are going to bring American soldiers home 
for fear the enemy in Iraq will wait us out?
  If this increase and escalation of troops is temporary in nature, 
then it betrays the argument which the White House has made now for 
years. If we are going to add 20,000 troops, how can we guarantee that 
the enemy will not ``wait us out''?
  I find it hard to follow the President's logic. I don't understand 
why he believes 20,000 troops will change the complexion of a civil 
war. I certainly don't understand how sending troops in on a temporary 
basis is going to result in anything of a positive nature. Army Chief 
of Staff Peter Schoomaker said:

       We should not surge without a purpose and that purpose 
     should be measurable.

  What is the purpose? How will it be measured, and what is the 
timeline for completion? When does the President expect these troops 
and the 144,000 other American troops currently in Iraq to return home? 
The President may not want to use the word ``escalation,'' but that is 
the word that fits because if he is going to increase the number of 
troops, increase the danger to our soldiers, it is an escalation of 
this war. Like Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, President Bush 
is saying that he is sending more troops because conditions on the 
ground demand it.
  In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson said:

       Our numbers have increased in Vietnam because the 
     aggression of others has increased in Vietnam. There is not, 
     and there will not be, a mindless escalation.

  But that escalation was followed by many others because American 
Presidents were trying to win someone else's civil war and because they 
were refusing to recognize the fundamental reality.
  It is that the Iraqis, if we send in 20,000 more troops, will assign 
20,000 troops or more to match. I suggest that that is a departure from 
what we have heard from this White House. Every schoolchild in America 
can recite the mantra: As they stand up, we will stand down. We have 
heard this over and over and over again. The suggestion that, as the 
Iraqi soldiers stand up and take responsibility, American soldiers can 
come home, that has been the promise. But if this is the bargain today, 
20,000 American troops to generate 20,000 Iraqi troops, then we have 
changed the mantra. The mantra now is, as American troops stand up, 
Iraqi troops will stand up. If that is, in fact, the new policy, how 
can there ever be any end in sight?
  We understand the reality. After almost 4 years, in a war that has 
lasted longer than World War II, we understand that we cannot win on a 
military basis. The President said it. Secretaries of Defense have said 
it. The generals in the field have said it. The Iraq war can only be 
stabilized and won on a political and economic basis. And to start 
with, we must disband the militias. The notion that leaders like Sadr 
can create a militia, a death squad, which can roam the streets of 
Baghdad and the roads of Iraq with impunity, suggests that there will 
be no stability and no security under these circumstances. The simple 
fact is, there is no sharing of power.
  When I visited Iraq the second time a few weeks ago with Senator Jack 
Reed of Rhode Island, we visited ministries which provide services 
almost exclusively to one religious sect. The health ministry, under 
the control of Mr. Sadr, is a ministry which provides few if any 
services to Sunnis. The Sunni population, which is about a third of the 
population of Iraq, doesn't get the hospitals and doctors. This 
ministry just helps Shias.
  I also talked to some people in the field. I said: When it comes to 
police protection, how does that work?
  Well, if you go into Baghdad and go into the police station, you will 
quickly learn whether it is a Shia or Sunni police station. Shia police 
don't arrest Shia civilians, and Sunni police don't arrest Sunni 
civilians. That is how badly fractured the society of Iraq is today. Is 
there anyone who believes that 20,000 American troops will change that? 
That decision has to be made by that Government's leaders to change 
Iraq and move it toward a nation and away from warring factions.
  Some are skeptical. They argue that this division in Islam is 14 
centuries old, and it is naive for westerners such as Americans and the 
Brits to believe that the arrival of the best troops in the world is 
somehow going to quell the flames of this battle that has gone on for 
centuries. It certainly isn't. It isn't going to change the 
circumstance without new political leadership. We need to establish 
civil order in Iraq. We need to make certain that we have leadership in 
this government that makes hard decisions that moves it toward a true 
nation. That is the answer to the stability of Iraq, not 20,000 
American soldiers and marines, sailors, and airmen who are now going to 
add to the ranks of those who risk their lives every day.
  It is time for the President to also be honest with the American 
people about the cost of this war. As of this morning, 3,015 American 
troops have died in Iraq; 7 times that number have come home disabled, 
maimed, blinded, suffering amputations and traumatic brain injury. That 
is the human legacy which is the paramount concern we all have.
  There has also been another legacy of cost, almost $2 billion a week 
that we are spending in the war on Iraq, money taken out of the United 
States and away from the very real needs of our Nation being spent over 
there. Yet here in the fourth year of this war, less electricity is 
being generated in Iraq than on the day we invaded. There is an 
opportunity for us to provide drinking water, but it, unfortunately, 
hasn't been successful, despite 4 years of effort. Sewage facilities, 
jobs, the most basic things, the most basic services by which you judge 
a society, those measurements tell us that we have failed to produce in 
Iraq as promised.

  That is the reality, despite some $380 to $400 billion having been 
spent by the United States in the 4 years we have been involved in this 
war. Now the administration is preparing another supplemental request. 
I read in the papers this morning that they are going to try to keep it 
under $100 billion. They come in and call this war an unanticipated 
emergency appropriation. We are now in the fourth year of unanticipated 
emergency appropriations. Sadly, every dollar we are spending in Iraq 
is a dollar not spent in America and a dollar of debt left to our 
children.
  This President is the first President in the history of the United 
States, despite all the conflicts Presidents have faced, to call for a 
tax cut in the midst of a war, making our deficit situation even worse. 
The President needs to be much more honest with the American people in 
terms of the real cost of this war.
  Let's speak for a moment about the state of our military. Again, they 
are the best and bravest in the world. Meeting with them on my recent 
trip, I left with pride that they would put on the uniform and risk 
their lives for our country. But our military has paid a heavy price, 
not just in the deaths and casualties but in the fact that they have 
lost combat readiness, equipment. They have been weakened in a world 
where we can't afford to be weak. This President refuses to replenish 
the troops as needed. Our National Guard units in Illinois and across 
the Nation have about one-third of the equipment they need to respond 
to a domestic crisis or if activated again in Iraq. There is little or 
no effort to replenish these troops as they must be. We struggle, 
offering bonuses and incentives to bring in more recruits and retain 
those who are currently serving, understanding that our ranks are 
thinning because we have asked so much of these men and women who serve 
us.
  General Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee in November 
that the military does not have the capacity to maintain an additional 
20,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq. It will be interesting to see how 
the President suggests we find these soldiers and marines that he now 
wants to send over in the escalation of this war.
  General Abizaid said:

       The ability to sustain that commitment is simply not 
     something we have right now with the size of the Army and the 
     Marine Corps.

  That was the general's testimony just a few weeks ago. Yet the 
President has decided to ignore the general's statement and to call for 
more troops. I don't doubt the Pentagon can find somewhere to get 
additional troops, extending the tours of duty of those who

[[Page S316]]

are currently there, for example; and I don't doubt that our brave men 
and women will bear this ever-increasing burden. But I ask, at what 
cost to our Nation, at what cost to its families?
  We have to ask as well: How does sending more troops represent the 
change in direction so clearly called for by the American people when 
they voted this last November? Tragically, this idea of escalating the 
war is more of the same. Tonight I expect the President to use the word 
``change'' repeatedly, but I have seen little to give me hope that he 
will actually implement change or a new direction in our policy in 
Iraq.
  I want Congress and the American people to finally ask the hard 
questions. For the 4 years of this war, this Congress has been supine. 
It has refused to stand up and accept its constitutional responsibility 
to hold this administration, as it should hold every administration, 
accountable for its conduct and spending. That is why I am heartened to 
know that even this week, we will have our first hearings before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, hearings by Chairman Levin and Chairman Biden, in an effort 
to ask some of the hard questions about the policies we have in Iraq.
  This line of inquiry is long overdue. Simple things need to be asked. 
First, some accountability when it comes to the money that is being 
spent. We have all heard about the abuses, the profiteering. It doesn't 
make America any safer or help our troops at all. It pads the bottom 
line for private companies, many of whom benefit from no-bid contracts, 
but it doesn't make us any safer. We need to hold the Department of 
Defense accountable, to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent, 
to make sure that the money being spent for our troops is, in fact, 
providing them with the best equipment and everything that was 
promised. That inquiry is long overdue.
  We are also, of course, going to face the reality that this civil war 
in Iraq is getting worse and not better. When 3,000 civilians die in 
the course of a month, it is an indication of a society that is out of 
control.
  We will soon be approaching the fourth anniversary of the invasion. I 
can remember when the vote was cast on the floor of the Senate. It was 
late at night. It was a week or two before the election. Several of us 
who had voted against this use of force because of our serious concerns 
didn't know, of course, what it would mean in the next election or how 
this would play out ultimately.
  We stand here today, some 4 years later after that vote, and realize 
that this decision to invade Iraq was the most serious strategic 
mistake in foreign policy made by this country in the last four 
decades. One has to go back to the decision in Vietnam to continue to 
escalate that conflict, long after we had any prospect of success or 
victory, to find an analogy in recent memory.
  The time came under President Gerald Ford when he faced the reality 
of Vietnam. It is time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. 
The reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with 
American blood. We have paid with American sacrifice. We have paid with 
American treasure. We have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed 
their dictator. We put him on trial. He will no longer be on the scene 
in any way, shape, or form since his execution. We have given them a 
chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, 
establish their own government. We have protected them when no one else 
would. America has done everything promised in Iraq. The reality, 
though, is we have done what we can do. Now it is up to the Iraqis. It 
is up to them to stand and defend their own country.
  Sending in 20,000 more troops at this moment says to the Iraqis: 
Don't worry. America will always be there to bear the brunt of battle 
so that Iraqis don't have to.
  That is not the right approach. The best approach is for us to start 
redeploying our troops on a systematic basis so that the Iraqis know 
that it is their responsibility and their country that they must stand 
and defend. It is time for us not to send more American troops into 
danger but to bring American troops out of danger and back home. That 
needs to start and start immediately.
  Instead of the President's escalation of the war within the next 6 
months, we should begin to redeploy our troops so that it truly becomes 
an Iraqi effort to create an Iraqi nation. Our end goal, as the Baker-
Hamilton Iraq Study Group showed us, should be redeployment, 
repositioning of the majority of our forces by the first quarter of 
2008. Escalation is not a blueprint for success. It is a roadmap to 
where we have already been.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. I have been wondering what the specific position of the 
Democratic leadership was on the other side of the aisle relative to 
Iraq. If I understand it correctly, it is that we should redeploy--
which, I presume, is a euphemism for withdraw--is that correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. The redeployment would take the troops out of Iraq and, 
perhaps, position them in a nearby country. We would still be involved 
in trade, still be involved in hunting down al-Qaida forces and trying 
to stop terrorism. Yes, our feeling is--and I think the Senate vote on 
this--we should begin redeploying troops on a 4-to-6-month basis.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I may use the term withdraw, I have 
heard the term withdraw being used, but apparently it doesn't mean the 
troops would be coming out of Iraq. The Senator further suggested that 
that should be done immediately, is that correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. Our feeling is that we could not do it immediately. The 
Baker-Hamilton study group suggested that we would basically redeploy 
our troops over a 15-month basis. That would suggest an orderly 
movement of troops of maybe 10,000 a month. But if you did it 
precipitously, it would create a danger for our troops and an 
instability. I think if we had an orderly redeployment, withdrawal, the 
Iraqis would get the message that they have to step in as American 
troops are redeployed.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator used the term ``immediately'' in his 
statement. That is why I wanted to clarify that. So we should withdraw 
over the horizon, i.e., redeploy, the Senator said, and that withdrawal 
should be at a pace of about 10,000 troops per month, and that process 
should begin immediately, I guess, and that it would be completed 
within 18 months, being the first quarter of 2008. Is that basically 
the specifics of how the Senator would approach the situation on the 
ground?
  Mr. DURBIN. What I described to you is the Baker-Hamilton proposal. I 
did make exceptions for leaving troops there for training purposes and 
for hunting down al-Qaida terrorists, those specific circumstances. My 
feeling is that over a 4-to-6-month basis, we need to establish 
timelines so our troops could start moving away from Iraq and the 
Iraqis can step in. I use 10,000 a month because that is the way the 
math works if you follow Baker-Hamilton. It could be zero troops 
withdrawn or redeployed in the first 60 days, and 20,000 or 30,000 at 
some future time.
  My personal belief is that until the Iraqis understand that we are 
leaving, they will not accept the responsibility to defend their own 
government and country, and they won't make the hard political 
decisions to put an end to the civil war.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the specifics from the assistant leader. I 
have not heard specifics from the other side of the aisle. I think it 
is constructive.
  Can I continue to ask the question, however, to get a sense of what 
the specific proposals are from the other side. The President is going 
to send up a supplemental estimated to be over $100 billion. We have 
already had one of approximately $70 billion. So we are talking of a 
total supplemental of $170 billion. This additional supplemental would 
be, I presume, to cover what is being represented in the press as 
potentially a surge in troops and additional spending of significant 
dollars for reconstruction. Is it the position of the Senator that that 
$100 billion is more money than needs to be spent? In other words, if 
the proposal of the Senator, which is a withdrawal over the horizon, to 
begin over the next 2 or 3 months, accelerated to the point where it 
was completed by the beginning of 2008, averaging about 10,000 people 
per month--is it therefore the Senator's position that if you pursue 
that course

[[Page S317]]

of action, you would not need $100 billion?
  Mr. DURBIN. I don't serve on the Armed Services Committee, but it is 
my guess that redeploying troops is also a very expensive endeavor--
maybe as expensive as deploying them and holding a position. So I don't 
know if there will be a savings if there is a redeployment. Although I 
voted against the use of force resolution that led to the invasion, I 
voted for every penny this administration asked for for the troops. I 
believe--and I think my fellow colleagues on the Democratic side, and I 
am sure on the Republican side--that they don't want to shortchange the 
troops either as they stay in Iraq or if they are redeployed from Iraq. 
I would judge the supplemental under those circumstances. What will it 
cost to redeploy them safely?
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator; he is always forthright. I will ask a 
followup question. Does the Senator believe this supplemental that is 
coming up, as I believe, should go through the regular order rather 
than being declared an emergency and have authorization language, or go 
through the authorizing committee for review and then go to the 
appropriating committee and then come to the floor?
  Mr. DURBIN. I don't speak for the leadership or anybody in the 
caucus, but I believe that. This notion that we are dealing with an 
unanticipated expenditure in the fourth year of this war is a charade. 
I think it would be better for us to deal with this in the regular 
appropriations process so that we can integrate the cost of the 
supplemental with the actual expenses of the Department of Defense and 
do our best to meet the needs of our soldiers and yet not waste 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy in allowing me to ask 
him some questions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the time on the 
majority side will be reserved, and the Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.

                          ____________________