[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1075-S1080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON
IRAQ
Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
and Mrs. McCaskill) submitted the following concurrent resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Con. Res. 4
Whereas, we respect the Constitutional authorities given a
President in Article II, Section 2, which states that ``The
President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States;'' it is not the intent of this resolution
to question or contravene such authority, but to accept the
[[Page S1076]]
offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007
that, ``if members have improvements that can be made, we
will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust;''
Whereas, the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq
can only be sustained and achieved with support from the
American people and with a level of bipartisanship;
Whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are
currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since
March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent
with the finest traditions of the United States armed forces,
and are deserving of the support of all Americans, which they
have strongly;
Whereas, many American service personnel have lost their
lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the
American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor
their families;
Whereas, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, including their
Reserve and National Guard organizations, together with
components of the other branches of the military, are under
enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq
and Afghanistan;
Whereas, these deployments, and those that will follow,
will have lasting impacts on the future recruiting, retention
and readiness of our nation's all volunteer force;
Whereas in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress stated that ``calendar year
2006 should be a period of significant transition to full
sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for
the security of a free and sovereign Iraq;''
Whereas, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723,
approved November 28, 2006, ``determin[ed] that the situation
in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international
peace and security;''
Whereas, a failed state in Iraq would present a threat to
regional and world peace, and the long-term security
interests of the United States are best served by an
Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, and
serve as an ally in the war against extremists;
Whereas, Iraq is experiencing a deteriorating and ever-
widening problem of sectarian and intra-sectarian violence
based upon political distrust and cultural differences
between some Sunni and Shia Muslims;
Whereas, Iraqis must reach political settlements in order
to achieve reconciliation, and the failure of the Iraqis to
reach such settlements to support a truly unified government
greatly contributes to the increasing violence in Iraq;
Whereas, the responsibility for Iraq's internal security
and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the
Government of Iraq and Iraqi Security Forces;
Whereas, U.S. Central Command Commander General John
Abizaid testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, ``I met
with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps
Commander, [and] 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 to do this work. I
believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from
doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own
future;''
Whereas, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on
November 27, 2006 that ``The crisis is political, and the
ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting
of innocents are the politicians;''
Whereas, there is growing evidence that Iraqi public
sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq,
much less increasing the troop level;
Whereas, in the fall of 2006, leaders in the Administration
and Congress, as well as recognized experts in the private
sector, began to express concern that the situation in Iraq
was deteriorating and required a change in strategy; and, as
a consequence, the Administration began an intensive,
comprehensive review of the Iraq strategy, by all components
of the Executive branch;
Whereas, in December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group
issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy
that includes ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political
efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United
States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq
responsibly;''
Whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with
the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new
strategy (hereinafter referred to as the ``plan,'') the
central element of which is an augmentation of the present
U.S. military force structure through additional deployments
of approximately 21,500 U.S. military troops to Iraq;
Whereas, this proposed level of troop augmentation far
exceeds the expectations of many of us as to the
reinforcements that would be necessary to implement the
various options for a new strategy, and led many members to
express outright opposition to augmenting our troops by
21,500;
Whereas, the Government of Iraq has promised repeatedly to
assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband
militias, consider Constitutional amendments and enact laws
to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the
quality of essential services for the Iraqi people; yet,
despite those promises, little has been achieved;
Whereas, the President said on January 10, 2007 that ``I've
made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders
that America's commitment is not open-ended'' so as to dispel
the contrary impression that exists;
Whereas, the recommendations in this resolution should not
be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in,
or withdrawal of, the present level of forces: Now therefore
be it--
Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Senate disagrees with the ``plan'' to augment our
forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider
all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic
goals set forth below with reduced force levels than
proposed;
(2) The primary objective of the overall U.S. strategy in
Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political
compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen
the unity government, ultimately leading to improvements in
the security situation;
(3) The military part of this strategy should focus on
maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying
international terrorists a safe haven, conducting
counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability,
and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full
responsibility for their own security;
(4) United States military operations should, as much as
possible, be confined to these goals, and should charge the
Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating
sectarian violence;
(5) The military Rules of Engagement for this plan should
reflect this delineation of responsibilities;
(6) The United States Government should transfer to the
Iraqi military, in an expeditious manner, such equipment as
is necessary;
(7) The Senate believes the United States should continue
vigorous operations in Anbar province, specifically for the
purpose of combating an insurgency, including elements
associated with the Al Qaeda movement, and denying terrorists
a safe haven;
(8) The United States Government should engage selected
nations in the Middle East to develop a regional,
internationally sponsored peace-and-reconciliation process
for Iraq;
(9) The Administration should provide regular updates to
the Congress, produced by the Commander of United States
Central Command and his subordinate commanders, about the
progress or lack of progress the Iraqis are making toward
this end.
(10) our overall military, diplomatic and economic strategy
should not be regarded as an ``open-ended'' or unconditional
commitment, but rather as a new strategy that hereafter
should be conditioned upon the Iraqi government's meeting
benchmarks that must be specified by the Administration.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator
Collins and I have worked for some time to put forward a resolution
embracing the very serious, heartfelt sentiments of Senators with
regard to the President's plan that he enunciated on January 10.
That plan--and I credit the President for the in-depth study and
preparation that went into it, the consultations; I was privileged to
be a part of three consultations with the President in that period--it
is that plan about which a number of us here in the Senate have some
thoughts.
The President, in his statement on January 10, laid down the
invitation for Members of Congress to come forward and provide their
thoughts. And that is the vein in which the three of us, together with
a series of cosponsors, have adopted this first draft, which is
identical to the draft we put into the Record some nights ago. We
purposely have not changed a comma or a period or any other word in it
because a number of colleagues, in a very thoughtful and proper way,
have come to us with suggestions and ideas. But at this time, we
believe we should lay this down, such that other Senators who might
wish to be cosponsors may do so. The Senate works its will each day,
and we are always here to consider ideas from other colleagues, but at
the present time this is the format. We purposely waited until after
the Foreign Relations Committee worked on its resolution, which I
understand will soon be working its way to the calendar.
So for that purpose, we put in ours. We find some differences--very
significant, in my judgment--between ours and the resolution offered by
the distinguished Senator, Mr. Biden, and others--Senator Levin,
indeed, Senator Hagel.
We believe we have put a greater emphasis on urging the President to
consider other options, given that we have a general disagreement with
the very
[[Page S1077]]
significant level of troops that are specifically set forth in the
President's plan.
We also feel very strongly about the issue of sectarian violence and
how that must be the primary mission of the Iraqi forces. The American
GI simply should not be, in my judgment--whenever possible, the rules
of engagement should provide that the Iraqi forces should deal with the
sectarian violence issue. They understand the language. They understand
the cultural differences, which precipitate the animosity between the
Sunni and the Shia and, indeed, the most distressing aspects of it: the
Shia upon Shia and Sunni upon Sunni. We recognize that sectarian
violence is undermining, in many ways--the level of it--the efforts of
this Government under Prime Minister Maliki to go forward and exercise
the full reins of sovereignty and that it is in those interests that
sectarian violence has to be dealt with. It is an important mission,
but I believe strongly it is a mission that should be given primarily
to the Iraqi forces.
We concur with the President, who said many times, including in his
statement on January 10, that to allow this Government to fail and to
allow the accomplishments toward sovereignty through free elections by
the Iraqi people to be lost and this country to simply be plunged into
chaotic situations is not in the interests of peace in that region and,
indeed, peace in the world.
Our resolution does not provide for a reduction in any way or suggest
the level of U.S. forces there now. It does not provide a timetable. It
simply urges the President to consider all options and sets forth in
there the primary missions as we interpret them to be in the interests
of our country. Those primary missions track in large measure the
Baker-Hamilton report.
We also stress the need for benchmarks to be spelled out with
clarity. And should the operations in Baghdad go forward under the
Commander in Chief--and we recognize fully and in no way try to
contravene the authority of the President to act under the Constitution
as Commander in Chief--should that go forward, it will be done in an
incremental fashion, as we have been told by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs and others.
So when the first operation takes place, we should carefully set
forth the benchmarks and see if the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi
armed forces fulfill those benchmarks; namely, do they all come in the
numbers that they were supposed to under that plan? They failed to do
that when a similar augmentation for the Baghdad operation was
initiated this summer. Will the political structure in Iraq resist,
refrain, and in every other way allow the military commanders, both
U.S. and Iraqi, to carry out the missions as they see fit and employ
such tactics as they deem necessary to achieve those missions without
being called by the Government and told: Stop this, withdraw here, or
do not take that prisoner, but if you have him, then release him. We
cannot go in under that guise.
Thirdly and most importantly, we have to see how the Iraqis perform.
Will they take the point? Will they take the lead? And in such tactics,
will they then be the primary--the primary--if not the essential force
that deals with sectarian violence, such that the rules of engagement
spell out: Whenever necessary, the coalition forces and namely the
United States shall not be utilized.
At this time, I would invite my colleagues to express their views,
and I will ask each to name those cosponsors whom we have gotten from
each side of the aisle.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the
senior Senator from Virginia for his considerable work in drafting this
resolution and working over the weekend with us and our staffs, who
worked very closely together to prepare this Iraq resolution.
I think it is important to say as well that I respect the work done
by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in considering the
resolution submitted by, supported by their chairman, the distinguished
Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden. I have a great deal of respect for
Senator Biden's work.
This is an area where there can be more than one idea about how to
approach something, but at the end of the day, it is going to be
important to have a resolution that has broad bipartisan support.
I also appreciate the work of Senator Collins, who, as our colleague,
has worked very closely on this resolution together with her staff to
be able to submit it today in this fashion by putting it not only into
the Record but on the floor so it can become part of the business of
the Senate.
There will be some who would say: Why is there a need for a second
resolution? Well, this resolution offers a new set of ideas, more
broadly worded, and in some cases, clearly, more likely to be
bipartisan for Senators to consider. Given the fact that the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee resolution came out on largely a partisan
vote, we think this resolution, because it is picking up bipartisan
support, will be, in terms of content and support, consistent with an
effort to bring about a bipartisan resolution with broad support.
The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have not been followed to
any significant extent to date. In some respects, they have been almost
on a skyhook for future consideration. It was our feeling that many of
these recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton study group should be
included in a resolution, and we included many of those recommendations
in the body of our resolution.
We also worked very carefully to avoid political rhetoric or any kind
of rhetoric that threatens the real objective. The real objective of
this resolution is to stress to the White House that we disagree with
the approach this plan takes by putting more men and women in our
uniform in harm's way to fight, to do battle, to overcome the sectarian
violence and the possible civil war of the Sunnis and the Shias and
various subgroups within those religious and political elements. We
also believed it was important to stress benchmarks and to empower the
Prime Minister and the Iraqi Government to be able to meet certain
objectives, certain goals, and to be able to deliver.
At the end of the day, we think it is important to send a strong but
unified message to the White House and Iraq. The more support the
resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be. So
tonight I am very pleased and am certainly proud to be here with my
colleagues to say that at the end of the day, we think the strength of
this resolution to uphold our responsibility will be in the best
interests of our country and our military and that our colleagues
should join together with us in opposition to the surge of U.S. troops
to be placed in Baghdad. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi
Government and the Iraqi military to overcome the battles between
sectarian groups within their own country and to seek less of a
military resolution and certainly more of a political resolution to the
problems that exist at the present time.
With that, let me say that I would like to see our unanimous consent
be modified to include up to 10 minutes for Senator Salazar from
Colorado to speak on the resolution afterward, if there is no
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly will not object. I wonder if I
might have 2 minutes following Senator Collins to summarize before we
receive the distinguished Senator from Colorado for his remarks. I ask
unanimous consent that the unanimous consent agreement be modified so I
can have about 2 minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
If not, without objection, the unanimous consent agreement is so
modified.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to now turn
to Senator Collins, who has worked very closely with us. Before I do, I
should indicate the cosponsors from the Democratic side are Senator
Salazar, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bayh, and
Senator McCaskill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
[[Page S1078]]
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my two colleagues on
the Senate floor this evening in submitting a very important resolution
on what is perhaps the greatest challenge facing our country.
Let me first say it has been an honor and a privilege to work with
the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the former chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as my friend and colleague
from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson. We have worked very hard on this
resolution, spending many hours wordsmithing the language of it, trying
to get exactly the kind of serious policy statement we could bring
before our colleagues in the Senate.
I am very pleased that on the Republican side, we are joined by two
leaders on this issue, Senator Coleman and Senator Smith. They, too,
have had input to the resolution. That brings the number of us who are
joining tonight as original sponsors of our resolution to 10 Members of
the Senate. I would also note that based on conversations I have had
with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there are several more
Senators who are very interested in our resolution and may well join in
cosponsoring it at a later date or certainly in voting for it.
Yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee held a very useful
hearing on the nomination of an outstanding military officer, General
Petraeus, whom the President has tapped to lead our forces in Iraq.
Earlier today the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe by
unanimous vote, voted to report this vital nomination to the full
Senate. General Petraeus is the ideal person to be taking over as
commander of our troops in Iraq. If anyone can make what I believe to
be a flawed strategy a success, it is he. But I had a very interesting
exchange with General Petraeus. I talked to him about my concern that
inserting more American troops into Iraq may well lessen the pressure
on Iraqi leaders to take the long overdue steps that are needed to
quell the sectarian violence.
I know the President believes the answer is more American troops,
that that will provide the Prime Minister and other leaders with the
space they need to take the reforms forward. I fear it is just the
opposite. I believe it lessens the pressure on the Iraqi leaders.
Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator yield?
Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WARNER. Did not the CENTCOM commander, who is still the CENTCOM
commander, General Abizaid, testify before our committee and, in the
precise words, said he felt that at this time added troops were not
necessary, more troops would lessen the incentive of the Iraqis to pick
up the burdens which we are trying to have them assume under
sovereignty?
Ms. COLLINS. The distinguished Senator from Virginia is exactly
correct. That is indeed the testimony that was brought before our
committee a month ago. This was not ancient history. It was very
reasoned testimony and it could not have been clearer testimony.
Indeed, similar testimony was given by General Casey.
I asked General Petraeus if he felt we would be facing the widespread
and deteriorating sectarian violence that threatens the entire country,
but particularly the Baghdad region, if Iraqi leaders had amended their
Constitution, had passed an oil revenue law that more equitably
distributed oil proceeds among the groups in Iraq, if they had held
provincial elections, if they had more fully integrated the Sunni
minority into the Government power structures; would we be in the same
place today? And he told me he did not believe we would be. I think
that is significant, because I believe if Iraqi leaders had taken those
steps, we would not be facing the widespread sectarian violence that
has engulfed the Baghdad region.
I also talked to General Petraeus about a fascinating article he
wrote a year ago in which he outlined 14 observations that he had,
based on his previous tours in Iraq. The first and most important
observation in this article in ``Military Review'' that General
Petraeus had was to quote Lawrence of Arabia back in 1917, to say that
it was a mistake for us to do too much, whoever the foreign force is,
and that you had to let the Iraqis take the lead on these issues. Well,
those words, true in 1917, are just as true today, as General Petraeus
himself observed in this article.
The second observation in the same article, General Petraeus said an
army like ours in a land like Iraq has a half life as liberators, that
they are quickly seen as an army of occupiers. I believe that is what
has happened in Iraq and that confirms what my own observations were
during a trip a month ago to that land. Our delegation met with a
British commander in Basra who described to us a declining consent
line. He said at first when the British arrived in Basra, they were
greeted as liberators. But as time has gone by, their presence is more
and more resented and less and less tolerated.
The observations General Petraeus had in this article offer us good
guidance and, indeed, reflect in many ways the concepts we have worked
hard to include in this resolution.
There is one final point I want to make this evening. Some have said
if we pass this resolution, we show that America is somehow divided and
not supportive of our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is every Member of this body is united in support of our
troops. Every Member of this body wishes General Petraeus all the best
and hopes he will succeed in this very difficult mission. But the fact
is, Americans are deeply divided over the strategy we should pursue in
Iraq. It is part of the health of our American democracy that we debate
these issues, and we do so because we care about the brave men and
women in uniform who are representing us in Iraq, who are on the front
lines, who are sacrificing so much. That is exactly the motivation for
the resolution that the 10 of us are introducing tonight.
Let me close my remarks by again saying it has been a wonderful
experience to work so closely with the senior Senator from Virginia and
the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson. Both of them have worked so
hard. They care so much about this issue. It has been a great pleasure
to join with them.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska and
Senator Collins. It is important that we have taken this initiative
because a number of colleagues--10 now--wish to be recognized. But
believe me, there are 10 more and 10 more who will soon come forward,
hopefully, and support this resolution. I also want to stress, as both
of my colleagues did, I hope as this debate progresses, it will not be
a question of who is the most patriotic, who is the strongest supporter
of the American troops. I pride myself with having had a relationship
with the Armed Forces of the United States, modest though it may be,
since late 1944-1945. I had the privilege of working and learning. I
often feel the Armed Forces did far more for me than I have done for
them. In my years, now 29 years, here in the Senate on the Armed
Services Committee, I have done everything I could to repay the Armed
Forces for what they did for this humble person, to provide for them in
a way that meets the sincerity of their commitments and that of their
families.
So it is not a question of who is the most patriotic or a question of
who is trying to be confrontational with the President. These are
heartfelt, closely held views we have about one of the most serious
episodes in contemporary American history. I think the President has
shown a measure of courage in this matter. But as has been
acknowledged, we have made mistakes. And what we have tried to do is
conscientiously say how we feel about the immediate future.
I asked for a change in strategy, I guess it was October, when I came
back and said the situation, as I saw it, in Iraq was going sideways.
That has been done. This is a change in strategy. I acknowledge that.
We were invited by the President to make suggestions. We have done that
in a courteous, respectful manner. I thank my colleagues.
I stress also the need for bipartisanship. I am not certain anyone
can predict how this debate will go and what the outcome will be or how
many resolutions come forward. I think it should be a healthy, strong
debate and one in which the American public, which is
[[Page S1079]]
very much attuned to this situation and has strong views of its own--
and we should respect those views--I hope that what debate and actions
follow, whatever they may be by this Chamber on such final resolutions
that may be voted on, earn the respect and the trust and the confidence
not only of the Armed Forces but of the American public. Because we can
only be successful in this operation to save the Government of Iraq,
whether it is this one or a successor one, to save the people of Iraq
so they can exercise sovereignty if there is strong public support and
a strong and accurate bipartisan level of participation by the Congress
of the United States. To have a vote all on one side and a vote all on
the other side will not help this very situation at this time.
So one of the main goals--and we have achieved it--is bipartisanship,
truly.
I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. And I wish to, in so
yielding, thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado for joining us
in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me first say I am pleased and honored
to be here with Senator Warner and Senator Collins and Senator Nelson.
It was about a year or so ago that Senator Levin and Senator Warner led
a CODEL of Senators into Iraq and Afghanistan. I had the great fortune
of traveling with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin on that CODEL.
I learned a tremendous amount from them in terms of what it is they had
seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the observations they made about where we
were on the levels of violence in Iraq. I came away from that CODEL
with them feeling as if they truly had the best interests of America at
heart. As they have sponsored these resolutions today, what they are
acting out here is in the best fashion of what a Senator should do, and
that is trying to do the best for our country.
Let me say, first of all, with respect to the resolution that was
heard earlier today in the Foreign Relations Committee, sponsored by
Senator Levin and Senator Biden and Senator Hagel, I very much
appreciate their leadership and thinking and the passion they brought
to the debate and to this issue.
When I sat down and compared the resolution considered in the Foreign
Relations Committee to the resolution that is now being introduced by
Senator Warner and other colleagues, I thought there were a great
number of similarities between the two resolutions.
Let me just comment about my own involvement and give part of my
rationale for becoming an original sponsor of this resolution. First
and foremost, I think what this country needs today more than anything
else is a sense of unity. I think we have had a great deal of
divisiveness in this country over the last 6 years. I think in the long
run, when one looks 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road at these very
difficult times that are very challenging to our country--very
challenging to our men and women in uniform and the other men and women
of America--we will be judged as to whether we in this Congress were
able to unify a direction in Iraq that ultimately was a successful
direction in Iraq.
I have called for a new direction in Iraq because I believe we need
that to get us to success there. I don't believe we can get to success
in Iraq if we have a divided country in terms of how we move forward.
With respect to the resolution that is before us, in my own
conversations with the President and with members of his administration
in the past, I have told them that, in my view, with all due respect to
our Commander in Chief, we need to move forward in a new direction.
When I returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with the Levin-Warner
codel, one of the things I told the President we needed to do was to
enhance our diplomatic efforts in the region; that the countries in the
area have as much, if not more, at stake than the United States. I saw
them doing very little.
Today, I see Saudi Arabia, with all its wealth, doing very little to
help in the reconstruction of Iraq. The same thing could be said about
Kuwait and many of the neighboring countries. That effort has to be
enhanced because they simply, in my judgment, are not doing their part
to contribute to a successful outcome in that region.
I have also spoken to the President and members of his administration
about the importance of the effort of reconstruction and making sure
that there are other countries besides the United States putting their
shoulder to the wheel on the reconstruction efforts that are underway
in Iraq.
The way I see this debate unfolding is that we essentially have the
plan of the President, which I call plan A. His plan is that we do a
lot of what we have been doing but, in addition, that we move forward
and add an additional 21,500 troops to the war effort in Iraq. That
would be what I call plan A. There is another plan out there, plan B,
from some Members of Congress and others that say we ought to bring our
troops home and bring our troops home right away; that we ought to
engage in an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and from that region. My
own view of that plan, plan B, is that is not a good plan either. At
the end of the day, no matter what criticisms we make about the
original decision to invade Iraq, about the way the war has been
mishandled, the fact is we are in Iraq today; there is a mess in Iraq
and in the Middle East. So the question for me becomes: How do we as
the United States of America, working in the Senate, working in the
House of Representatives, working with the President, how do we put
Humpty-Dumpty together again? It seems to me that Humpty-Dumpty has
fallen off the wall, and it is up to us to try to figure out, in some
united way, under difficult circumstances, how to move forward together
to create the unity that will allow us to succeed in Iraq.
When I look at the possibility of plan B, which is a precipitous
withdrawal from Iraq, it seems to me that will create tremendous
dangers not only to the Middle East but to the long-term interests of
the United States. I, for one, want us very much to succeed in Iraq
and, because I want to succeed, I want to see whether we can create a
kind of unity on how we move forward.
I think this resolution introduced by the senior Senator from
Virginia, the Senator from Nebraska, and the Senator from Maine is a
good direction for us to go in. I want to point out what I consider to
be four central points of this resolution which, in my view, are also
reflected in the Biden-Levin-Hagel resolution. The first of those
points is that there is a disagreement with the President's decision to
move forward with a surge of 21,500 more troops. I think both
resolutions say that equally and clearly. Why, in this resolution, is
that conclusion reached? Why was it reached in the other resolution
heard in the Foreign Relations Committee?
In my view, it is because of what our military commanders have said.
General Abizaid said it a few weeks ago, in November. He said an
increase in troops was not the way to go because it sends the wrong
signal about the ultimate responsibility to quell the sectarian
violence in Iraq. It is not the right way to go because when you look
at what happened with the surges we have had over the last 6, 7 months
in Iraq, they themselves did not work. When operations going forward
started in June, there was a sense that it might quell some of the
sectarian violence going on. It didn't work. We came back in August and
did another operation going forward. It did not work.
The Iraq bipartisan study commission, chaired by former Secretary
Baker and Lee Hamilton, found, in fact, that those surges created an
escalation of violence by 43 percent during that time period. In a
matter of 6 months we saw a 43-percent escalation of violence there.
Regarding putting more troops in, it seems we have the laboratory of
experience where it hasn't worked in the past, and there is nothing I
have seen that indicates that moving forward in that direction will
work at this time. I agree with the resolution and making a statement
that we disagree with the President's decision moving forward in that
regard.
As to the second part of this resolution, also reflected in the
alternative resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee, I think
there is unanimity of opinion. I bet you that we can get 100 Senators
to vote for the position that the Iraqi Government needs to assume
responsibility for a functioning government that will provide security
[[Page S1080]]
to the Iraqi nation and to the people of Iraq.
When Senator Warner and I visited Iraq with Senator Levin, I still
remember meeting with the Iraqi Ministers and with our own forces
responsible for helping with the training of the Iraqi police. Mr.
President, 2006 was supposed to be the year of the police in Iraq. This
is the year where the Iraqi security was supposed to be taken to the
point where they could move forward and assume the responsibility for
their own security. Yet that handoff hasn't occurred and the sectarian
violence has continued to increase.
I very much agree with the spirit of both resolutions that says if we
are going to move forward and be successful on this issue, it is the
Iraqi Government and people who need to move forward and assume
responsibility for their security.
The third thing in this resolution that I think is important is that
we contemplate that there is going to be some continuing involvement of
the United States in Iraq, without limitation. Nobody knows for how
long. But our efforts to engage in counterterrorism in that area will
be a continuing and important role of the United States of America. Our
efforts to attempt to restore the territorial integrity of Iraq and to
stop the weapons flowing into Iraq from Iran and Syria are important
measures that I believe the U.S. military can address. I agree with
those aspects of the resolution as well.
Finally, as I said earlier in my comments, at the end of the day,
this is not a United States of America problem alone. When one looks at
the Gulf States and other countries in that area, such as Egypt, there
is a huge problem that belongs to them as well. We have our hands on
the tar baby as the United States of America. They, too, as countries
have a huge stake in the success of Iraq and also have to get their
hands on the tar baby. I believe the resolution put forward by Senator
Levin and my other colleagues is a step in the right direction in that
it creates a framework for how we ought to be moving forward in Iraq.
In conclusion, again, I say how much I respect the senior Senator
from Virginia. I remember well the work that we did just a year or so
ago in the so-called Gang of 14. I see that Senator Nelson and Senator
Collins and Senator Warner are back again trying to pull the Members of
this body together on what is a very contentious issue. I wish them
well, and I am delighted to be part of the effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from
Colorado and pick up on the theme that he closed and talked on
earlier--unity.
Yes, there is great unity among the American people and a depth of
concern about the loss of our forces and the wounding and suffering of
the families. We have not lost our resolve. Our President has been
firm. But this institution, the great Congress of the United States, a
coequal branch of the Government, now must rise and show our commitment
to fulfill the wishes and hopes and prayers of the American people, and
do so in a bipartisan manner. That is the very heart of the effort of
our 10 colleagues who thus far have come forward and put their names
into the public domain as supporting the provisions of this resolution.
They do resemble, in many respects, the provisions in the Biden-
Levin-Hagel resolution. When that first came out, so much of the
rhetoric surrounding that resolution was disturbing to many people.
That gave rise to the efforts that we have put forth, culminating in
placing this document into the Record tonight.
I hope others will consider joining us because it is important to
show unity and bipartisanship in the Congress in saying that we, in
fact, understand the hopes, wishes, and prayers of the American people
and the Armed Forces of the United States.
I thank my colleague and yield the floor.
____________________