[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S632-S633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the leaders for the time this 
morning.
  I recently returned from a trip looking into what is taking place in 
the war on terrorism. I was in Afghanistan in Kabul and also went to 
the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, had a brief meeting in Pakistan with 
our Ambassador and military leadership in Pakistan and also in Kuwait. 
I then went from there to Iraq. I was in Baghdad for a period of 24 
hours plus. I went to Irbil in northern Iraq in the Kurdish region, met 
with Barzani, head of the Kurdish region, and traveled to Ethiopia to 
the current front, the expanded front in the war on terrorism, saw what 
the Ethiopians are doing in Somalia. I met with the Prime Minister of 
Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, about what he is doing in Somalia. I had a very 
good meeting with him and also with our military commanders in that 
region, with the recent strikes we have done against terrorism in 
southern Somalia and work we have done with the Ethiopians.
  All of this was very informative. There is a mixture of news to 
report as to what is taking place in the war on terrorism. There are 
some very positive things happening, particularly the recent events in 
Somalia, what the Ethiopians are pushing for, and some very positive 
things happening in Afghanistan, some difficulties we are still having 
with Pakistani leadership going after some of the threats on the 
Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
  Northern Iraq is booming, the Kurdish area. Investment is flowing. 
There are cranes and people are building. Baghdad is in great 
difficulty.
  I, also, wish to talk about my suggestions for the route forward. I 
think the President, in his address, was saying he is proposing a route 
forward, and if others might oppose or have a different view, all I ask 
is that you put forward a proposal yourself. That is fair. That is what 
we ought to do. We are all in this, and we need to see the route 
forward.
  There is good news in Iraq, certainly. We have 140,000 of America's 
best and brightest working hard every day. I flew on troop transport 
planes in and out of various places with the troops and met and visited 
with them along the way. They are impressive. Their dedication and 
courage and commitment is impressive to feel. It is inspiring. It is 
inspiring to see. I have a niece and nephew who have signed up to join 
the Marines. So they are going into this as well. I am proud of them, 
as is the whole family.
  The irrepressible spirit of our soldiers--from new recruits to 
veterans of multiple--is inspiring. I even saw a father-son team from 
Kansas in Kuwait. They are enthusiastic, determined, and we depend on 
them for the success we will achieve in Iraq. I know firsthand it is 
not just a good sound bite to say we have the best Armed Forces in the 
world. There is simply no other place in the world that can boast of so 
many courageous, committed, and talented volunteers so willing to make 
sacrifices, whenever the country calls upon them. They continue to 
deserve our great respect and admiration for performing so ably under 
such difficult circumstances. And the circumstances are that.
  Baghdad still feels similar to an occupation zone. I was physically 
present in Baghdad for about 24 hours. It is hard to say that I saw the 
city. I left with an enduring image of concrete barriers and convoys of 
SUVs. I last visited Baghdad in March 2005. The environment is no 
better than it was at that period of time. Three mortar rounds exploded 
in the green zone while I was there meeting with the Iraqi Vice 
President. No one was harmed. They were launched from somewhere way 
out, but still they hit. It shows how insecure the city remains.
  We all wish the situation would get better, but I am particularly 
disappointed. I have had a long-term interest in Iraq. When I first 
came to the Senate in 1996, I served on the Foreign Relations Committee 
and chaired the Middle East Subcommittee that held some of the first 
hearings on what to do about Saddam Hussein's regime. I carried the 
Iraq Liberation Act on the floor of the Senate that was signed into law 
by President Bill Clinton. I helped get the initial $100 million for 
the Iraqi National Congress. I, also, attended the first INC meeting 
with Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. We both went to New York City to 
meet with the opposition about what to do about Saddam Hussein. I, 
also, attended the first Iraqi National Congress meeting in London. I 
have been committed to a free, safe, and secure Iraq from the very 
beginning.
  During my meetings last week, I found less reason for optimism. Sunni 
leaders blame everything on the Shia, and the Shia leaders likewise 
blame everything on the Sunnis. The Kurdish leadership pointed out that 
the Sunnis and Shia only meet when the Kurds call the meeting. All of 
this suggests that, at the present time, the United States seems to 
care more about a peaceful Iraq than the Iraqis do. If that is the 
case, it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a 
difference.
  One other bright spot was my visit to the northern part of the 
country, the Kurdish region. The security situation is stable and 
business is booming, as some number of people moving out of Iraq are 
moving into northern Iraq into the Kurdish region. The Kurds are 
demonstrating what is possible for the rest of Iraq when violence 
recedes. The Kurds are pragmatic. They are worried about committing 
Kurdish forces to Baghdad. I asked Brazani, would he commit Kurdish 
forces for the peace in Baghdad? He declined to do so. They don't want 
to get caught in the middle of a sectarian fight. If Iraqi Kurds feel 
this way, why should we feel any differently? Simply put, the Iraqis 
have to resolve these sectarian differences. We cannot do it for them.
  This does not mean we should pull out of Iraq and leave behind a 
security vacuum or safe haven for terrorists. I do not support that 
alternative. It does mean that there must be a bipartisan agreement on 
our military commitment to Iraq. We cannot fight a war with the support 
of only one political party, and it does mean that the parties in 
Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurds--must get to a political equilibrium. I 
think most people agree that a cut-and-run strategy does not serve our 
interests, nor those of the world, nor those of the region, nor those 
of the Iraqi people.
  So I invite my colleagues all around, particularly on the other side 
of the aisle, to indicate what level of commitment they can support. We 
need to come together in Congress, and as a nation, on a strategy that 
will make real progress in Iraq and gain as much support as possible 
from the American people. Only a broadly supported, bipartisan strategy 
will allow us to remain in Iraq for the length of time necessary to 
ensure regional stability and to defeat the terrorists. That is our 
objective. Make no mistake, we may need to be in Iraq for some period 
of time, as we are in Bosnia, as we were in Europe, as we still remain 
in Korea. Iraqis should patrol their own streets, but we must continue 
to hunt down the terrorists. We must balance the aggressive moves by 
Iran, operating inside of Iraq, which seeks to exploit Iraq for its own 
gain.
  These missions will take time to achieve on our part. It is vital we 
get a bipartisan way forward on Iraq as soon as possible. I invite 
people on the other side of the aisle to put forward their proposals. 
As we refine our military posture, we should also enlist the support of 
Iraq's neighbors, through a diplomatic initiative similar to the 
recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Although I don't 
support all of those initiatives, I thought they had some good ideas, 
particularly engaging Iraq's neighbors. Each of Iraq's

[[Page S633]]

neighbors can benefit from a peaceful Iraq, and they can assist us in 
reaching a political equilibrium among Iraq's various groups. These 
include Iran and Syria, which are clearly meddling in Iraq but whose 
cooperation will be necessary for any political solution in Iraq to be 
relevant for the long term.
  To be successful, such a diplomatic initiative will require a great 
amount of attention and hard work. Thus, I recommend Secretary Rice and 
Vice President Cheney go to Iraq and practice shuttle diplomacy. They 
should lay the groundwork for a meeting of leaders from all three major 
Iraqi groups to take place outside of Iraq. This kind of a meeting 
could be similar to the Dayton Accords that helped resolve the conflict 
in Bosnia. It would allow for intense, sustained discussions aimed at a 
durable, long-term political settlement amongst the Iraqis. One 
potential political settlement could involve a three-State, one-country 
formula. Each of Iraq's major groups would have its own autonomous 
region with Baghdad as a federal city.
  Each group can manage its own affairs while preserving Iraq's 
territorial integrity. This is something the Iraqi Constitution allows, 
that the Kurdish people are practicing, and that the Iraqi leaders, I 
believe, should pursue to get to a political equilibrium. We have made 
our share of mistakes in Iraq. Still, we have invested the lives of 
more than 3,000 of our best and brightest for our Nation's future.
  The mission for which they died is not yet complete. We still need 
political equilibrium if we are to achieve a stable, united Iraq that 
can be an ally in the war on terrorism. We must win in Iraq, and we 
will. We must win for the future of the region and for the future of 
the world and for the future of Iraq. We must win for the future of 
America. That victory will require more than bullets; it will require 
political arrangements inside Iraq and around Iraq to end the sectarian 
violence and move toward a peaceful future for the Iraqi people and 
stability for the region. We are in a tough time, but I believe we have 
solutions that can work.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.

                          ____________________