[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        COMMENTS ON WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the war 
in Iraq. I oppose the surge. We don't need more American troops caught 
in the cross-hairs of a civil war. After nearly 4 years, it is high 
time for the Iraqis to send in their own troops to take out the Shia 
militias and the Sunni insurgents.
  In short, the problem in Iraq is that we are losing nearly 100 
American lives every month, and we are spending $2 billion a week. The 
solution is not to lose even more lives and to spend even more money.
  I approach this subject with a great deal of humility, and it is not 
my intention to micro-manage this war. I am merely a Member of Congress 
and not a four-star general. But I have listened to what the most well-
respected four-star generals in the United States have to say about 
this matter, and Generals Abizaid, Casey and Colin Powell have all said 
that sending another surge of troops into Iraq is not the answer.
  I am terribly concerned about interjecting American troops into the 
middle of civil war violence. Who do they shoot at? The Sunni? The 
Shia? One thing we know is that 61 percent of Iraqis approve of violent 
attacks against our own U.S. troops. Does that sound like a grateful 
country to you?
  Thanks to our brave American troops, Saddam Hussein and al-Zarqawi 
are dead, the Iraqi people have had three Democratic elections and 
three-fourths of the senior al Qaeda operatives have been killed or 
captured. And yet 61 percent of Iraqis want to kill American troops, 
and 79 percent of Iraqis have a mostly negative view of the United 
States.
  The American people have paid the ultimate price for this war, and 
now is not the time to escalate the tragedy even further. The Iraq war 
has lasted longer than World War II. It has claimed more American lives 
than the attacks of 9/11, and it has cost more money than the Vietnam 
War.
  The military action this Congress authorized in 2002 was for a far 
different purpose than the war we face today. I voted to authorize the 
use of force because I did not want Saddam Hussein to give weapons of 
mass destruction to al Qaeda. Now Saddam Hussein is dead, and there are 
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  Why did we stay in Iraq? Because we wanted the Iraqi people to have a 
unified and secure government so that Iraq would not become a haven for 
terrorists, like what happened to Afghanistan after Russia pulled out.
  Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has provided neither unity nor 
security. After nearly 4 years, the Iraqis still have not achieved 
reconciliation, still have not decided how to share oil revenues and 
still have not dealt with the militias and the insurgents.
  For example, 80 percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq is within a 
30-mile radius of Baghdad, yet despite the fact that the Iraqi security 
forces outnumber the al-Sadr militia by a ratio of 5-1, that is 300,000 
versus 60,000, the Maliki government has still not taken action to take 
out Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia.
  In his speech, President Bush tells us that he emphasized the 
importance of benchmarks with Prime Minister Maliki. Unfortunately, the 
Iraqi government has a pattern of not fulfilling its promises with 
regard to benchmarks.
  For example, when I was in Iraq in May of last year, the Iraqi 
government officials told me they would be able to provide security for 
themselves by December of 2006. Now they are saying they hope to have 
their own security in place by December of 2007.
  Similarly, the U.S. surged the number of troops in Baghdad last 
summer from 7,500 to 15,000 to take out the insurgents. But the Iraqi 
government reneged on its promise to provide Iraqi troops, and, as a 
result, the insurgents came right back after we left.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the motives of President Bush and other 
prominent leaders, such as John McCain, who are pushing for more troops 
are pure and well meaning. I believe they sincerely think this is the 
best way forward. Three years ago, I would have agreed with them. 
However, at this late stage, interjecting more young American troops 
into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right 
approach. We are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an 
American military solution.
  In closing, regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq or the 
proposed surge in troops, as long as our American troops are in harm's 
way, it is our duty and responsibility to support these troops 100 
percent.
  May God bless our troops and our country.

                          ____________________