[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S703-S705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2--EXPRESSING THE BIPARTISAN RESOLUTION ON
IRAQ
Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Snowe)
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Con. Res. 2
Whereas the United States strategy and presence on the
ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the
American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our
goal, and the best chance
[[Page S704]]
of success requires a change in current strategy;
Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing,
influence, and interests of the United States in Iraq, the
Middle East, and around the world;
Whereas more than 137,000 United States military personnel
are bravely and honorably serving in Iraq and deserve the
support of all Americans;
Whereas more than 3,000 United States military personnel
have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500
have been wounded in Iraq;
Whereas on January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush
announced his plan to deepen the United States military
involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000
additional United States combat forces to Iraq;
Whereas Iraq is witnessing widening sectarian and intra-
sectarian violence;
Whereas Iraqis must reach a political settlement if there
is going to be a reconciliation in Iraq, and the failure of
the Iraqis to achieve such a settlement has led to the
increase in violence in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on
November 27, 2006, that ``[t]he crisis is political, and the
ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting
of innocents are the politicians.'';
Whereas an open-ended commitment of United States forces in
Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making
the political compromises and providing the personnel and
resources that are needed for violence to end and for
stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
Whereas the responsibility for internal security and
halting sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with
the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;
Whereas there have been repeated promises by the Government
of Iraq to assume a greater share of security
responsibilities, disband militias, consider amendments to
the Iraq constitution, enact laws to reconcile sectarian
differences, and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi
people, but those promises have not been kept;
Whereas a successful strategy in Iraq is dependent upon the
Iraqi leaders fulfilling their promises;
Whereas the commander of the United States Central Command,
General John Abizaid, testified to Congress on November 15,
2006, that ``[i]t's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do
this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the
Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own
future'';
Whereas the Iraq Study Group suggested a comprehensive
strategy to ``enable the United States to begin to move its
combat forces out of Iraq responsibly'' based on ``new and
enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the
region'';
Whereas the United States Army and Marine Corps, including
their Reserves and the Army National Guard, their personnel,
and their families, are under enormous strain from multiple,
extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas the majority of nondeployed Army and Marine Corps
units are no longer combat ready due to a lack of equipment
and insufficient time to train; and
Whereas the United States strategy in Iraq must not
compromise the ability of the United States to address other
vital national security priorities, in particular global
terror networks, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, regional stability in the Middle East, the
nuclear program of Iran, the nuclear weapons of North Korea,
and stability and security in Afghanistan: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) it is not in the national interest of the United States
to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by
escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq;
(2) the primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq
should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the
political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;
(3) greater concerted regional, and international support
would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and
national reconciliation;
(4) main elements of the mission of United States forces in
Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial
integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities,
reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq,
and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;
(5) the United States should transfer, under an
appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal
security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the
Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces; and
(6) the United States should engage nations in the Middle
East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace
and reconciliation process for Iraq.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Hagel, Senator Levin, and I
are submitting a bipartisan resolution that opposes the President's
plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats
and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement
in Iraq by escalating our troop presence.
Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are
for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq.
That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each
other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Last week, when Secretary of State Rice presented the President's
plan to escalate our troop presence in Iraq to the Foreign Relations
Committee, the reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged
from profound skepticism to outright opposition.
This resolution will give every Senator a chance to say where he or
she stands on the President's plan.
I believe that when a President goes way off course on something as
important as Iraq, the single most effective way to get him to change
course is to demonstrate that his policy has waning or no support--from
both parties.
The more we make Iraq a partisan issue, the more the President is
likely to dig in. The more we show that Americans across the board
don't want to go down the path of escalation, the better our chance to
stop it.
Iraq is not a partisan issue. It's a challenge we must meet as
Americans.
The very first sentence of our resolution says something the three of
us believe profoundly: ``U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in
Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and
the bipartisan support of Congress.''
This resolution will demonstrate that, right now, the support is not
there for the President's policy in Iraq. The sooner he recognizes that
reality and acts on it, the better off all of us will be.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we have before us one of the most important
issues that has ever faced our country, certainly in modern times. The
future of Iraq will affect the United States, the Middle East, and the
world for decades to come.
No one in Congress and no one in the United States wants to see
America humiliated, defeated, or in any way lose its purpose. The issue
of Iraq involves all of us. The Congress of the United States must have
a role to play.
Our responsibility is to join together in a bipartisan effort to work
to develop a consensus to deal with the great challenges of our time. I
know of no challenge that is greater today, before this country, than
Iraq. When a Nation commits its men and women to war, it is the
greatest challenge that any of us will ever deal with in our time in
the Congress.
We owe it to the American people to help find a bipartisan consensus
of purpose, to help develop a policy worthy of our men and women in
uniform. The American people not only deserve but they expect a
consensus. This resolution is not about trying to assign blame on the
Administration. It is not about replaying past mistakes. This
resolution is about moving forward. It is difficult but it is our
responsibility.
Some of us believe that the course that the President announced
Wednesday was not the appropriate course. I do not believe that the
United States should be sending more American troops into the middle of
the tribal, sectarian civil war that is occurring in Iraq.
Senators Biden, Levin, and I have focused personally on writing this
resolution because we felt it must reflect a responsible, forward-
looking, and constructive approach. We must remain focused on a
strategy which seeks to advance America's national interests and allow
America to leave Iraq honorably.
The American people look to its government for responsible policy. A
policy that can be sustained. A policy that reflects a clear consensus
of purpose regarding our objectives, our strategy and our policies.
This is what our resolution seeks to achieve.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the primary objective of the bipartisan
resolution my colleagues and I are introducing today is to convince a
bipartisan majority of Senators to oppose deeper military involvement
in Iraq by the United States and to get the Iraqis to reach a political
settlement among themselves as the only way to end the violence in
Iraq.
The resolution would send a clear message that Congress does not
support the plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq because
it is based on the false premise that there is a
[[Page S705]]
military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is
needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions.
Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged recently that ``The
crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation
and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.''
The resolution states that it is not in the national security
interests of the United States to deepen our military involvement in
Iraq by increasing the number of U.S. troops.
The resolution calls for the transition of our military mission in
Iraq to a more limited one of training, counterterrorism, and
protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq. It also calls for greater
engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and
reconstruction of Iraq.
Last week the President said that he had made clear to Iraq's leaders
that America's commitment is not open-ended. I welcome these words. But
the reality behind the President's new rhetoric is that the open-ended
commitment continues--more American military men and women would be
sent into the chaos of Iraq's sectarian violence without condition or
limitation.
President Bush also indicated that the Iraqi government needs
``breathing space'' to make political progress. The opposite is true.
The Iraqi leaders don't need breathing space--they must feel real
pressure to reach a political settlement. Increasing our military
presence in Iraq takes more pressure off. The Iraq Study Group put it
this way last month: ``An open-ended commitment of American forces
would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take
the political actions that give Iraq its best chance of quelling
sectarian violence.''
President Bush also said that the Iraqis have set benchmarks for
themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi government in
meeting some of its past benchmarks and promises: Iraqi President
Talibani said in August 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over
security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge has
not been kept. Prime Minister Maliki said last June that he would
disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national
reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding
the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept. The
Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its
recommendations for changes in the Constitution to the Council of
Representatives within four months of the formation of the Government
last May. The Commission has yet to formulate any recommendations.
Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones
to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of
the Provincial Election Law, the Petroleum Law, a new De-Baathification
Law, and the Militia Law. Not one of these laws has been enacted. The
Iraqi army pledged six battalions in support of American and Coalition
efforts during Operation Forward Together last summer. In fact, Iraqis
provided only two battalions.
This is not a track record that inspires confidence in Iraqi pledges
and commitments.
The President said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to
the benchmarks it has announced.'' How did the President say we are
going to do that? What will the consequences be if the Iraqis continue
to fail to meet these benchmarks, particularly since some of them have
been established and missed in the past? The President said ``If the
Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose
the support of the American people . . . '' That is an empty threat
given the fact that the Iraqi Government has already lost the support
of the American people, and it hasn't affected their behavior. The
President's most recent plan, like previous ones, includes no mechanism
to hold the Iraqis to their commitments.
Just two months ago General Abizaid testified before our Committee
against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He told us: ``I
met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps
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? 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 do this work. I believe
that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from
taking more responsibility for their own future.''
Deepening our involvement in Iraq would be a mistake. Deepening our
involvement in Iraq on the assumption that the Iraqis will meet future
benchmarks and commitments given their track record would compound the
mistake.
For America to supply more troops while the Iraqi leaders simply
supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq. Telling the
Iraqis that we will increase our troops to give them yet more breathing
space will only postpone the day when Iraqis take their future into
their own hands and decide whether they want to continue to fight a
civil war or make peace among themselves.
This resolution does not limit any future course of action that
Congress may decide to take. What it would do is send a powerful
message to the President and the Iraqis that Congress does not support
an escalation of our military presence in Iraq.
____________________