[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E81-E82]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF 20,000 
                           NEW TROOPS TO IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 11, 2007

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, last night the President 
announced to the Nation his intention to deploy another 20,000 troops 
to Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, troop surges in Iraq are not new and, judging from 
history, the one announced last night by the President will not work. 
It will only succeed in putting more American troops in harm's way for 
no good reason and without any strategic advantage. The armed forces of 
the United States are not to be used to respond to 911 calls from 
governments like Iraq's that have done all they can to take 
responsibility for the security of their country and safety of their 
own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are not 
willing to do for themselves.
  Troop surges have been tried several times in the past. The success 
of these surges has, to put it charitably, been underwhelming. Let's 
briefly review the record:
  1. Operation Together Forward, (June-October 2006): In June the Bush 
administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing 
the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the 
White House announced that additional American troops would be sent 
into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William 
Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a 
failure and had ``not met our overall expectations of sustaining a 
reduction in the levels of violence.'' [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 
7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.]
  2. Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): 
In the fall of 2005 the Bush administration increased troop levels by 
22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around the 
constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the 
elections went off without major violence these escalations had little 
long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American 
troops. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org]
  3. Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 
2005): As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations 
after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security 
before the January 2005 constitutional elections U.S. forces were 
increased by 12,000 to 150,000. Again there was no long-term security 
impact. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.]

  4. Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a 
massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, 
troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000. Yet, the 
increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and 
April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces. 
[Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA Today, 3/4/
04]
  Madam Speaker, rather than surging militarily for the third time in a 
year, the president should surge diplomatically. A further military 
escalation would simply mean repeating a failed strategy. A diplomatic 
surge would involve appointing an individual with the stature of a 
former secretary of state, such as Colin Powell or Madeleine Albright, 
as a special envoy. This person would be charged with getting all six 
of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and 
Kuwait--involved more constructively in stabilizing Iraq. These 
countries are already involved in a bilateral, self-interested and 
disorganized way.
  While their interests and ours are not identical, none of these 
countries wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, 
becomes a failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become 
a haven for terrorists or a hemorrhage of millions more refugees 
streaming into their countries.

[[Page E82]]

  The high-profile envoy would also address the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, the role of Hezbollah and Syria in Lebanon, and Iran's rising 
influence in the region. The aim would not be necessarily to solve 
these problems, but to prevent them from getting worse and to show the 
Arab and Muslim world that we share their concerns about the problems 
in this region.
  Madam Speaker, the President's plan has not worked. Doing the same 
thing over and over and expecting a different result is, as we all 
know, a definition of insanity. It is time to try something new. It is 
time for change. It is time for a new direction.

                          ____________________