[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 16 (Friday, January 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1208-S1212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
F_____
NOMINATION OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS TO BE GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ARMY
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of David H. Petraeus to be
General, United States Army.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 45 minutes of debate, with the time to be equally divided
between the Senator from Michigan and the Republican leader or his
designee.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to express
my support for the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army, for
appointment to the grade of General and assignment as Commander,
Multinational Force--Iraq.
General Petraeus is presently serving as Commanding General, U.S.
Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the Army's leader
development, professional military education, doctrine development, and
lessons learned center. This is the place where the Army focuses its
attention and its greatest professional capabilities on developing
leaders, on military education, on developing doctrine, and on learning
the lessons from previous conflicts and challenges. As a matter of
fact, the Army and Marine Corps' newly issued counterinsurgency manual
was written under the command and guidance of General Petraeus at
Leavenworth.
General Petraeus had two previous tours of duty in Iraq. The first
was in 2003 when he was Commanding General of the 101st Airborne
Division, which was headquartered in Mosul, Iraq. General Petraeus'
second tour in Iraq was from May 2004 to September 2005, when he was
Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command--Iraq/Commander,
NATO Training Mission--Iraq. In that capacity, he was responsible for
the organizing, training, and equipping of Iraqi security forces.
General Petraeus' nomination to become the Commander of Multinational
Forces--Iraq may be the single most important command in the Nation's
defense establishment. The Nation will entrust him with the operational
command and the welfare of over 130,000 American service members who
are presently in Iraq, and of those who may be deployed to Baghdad as
part of the President's planned increase in the middle of a protracted
and bloody sectarian battle over the future of Iraq.
General Petraeus is professionally qualified for this command. He is
widely recognized for the depth and breadth of his education, training,
and operational experience. Noteworthy is his recent leadership of the
new Army/Marine Corps manual. He testified that he believes the new
military strategy for Iraq will work, and that the U.S. military forces
under his command will be able to successfully accomplish their
mission. We would not want a commander who did not believe in his
mission and in the troops under his command. I pray he is correct.
I am obviously very concerned over a strategy that relies on the
Iraqis meeting their commitments when they have repeatedly failed to do
so in the past. I am obviously concerned about a strategy which is
based on an increased military presence, when expert after expert,
including military commander after military commander, has told us
there is no military solution in Iraq; that the only way to end the
violence in Iraq is for the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.
I am deeply concerned that this new strategy, I believe, is based on
the wrong assumption--that there is a military solution to a sectarian
war--when in fact the only solution to a sectarian conflict is for
those groups to finally share power, share resources, including
resolving the differences over autonomy that can end the violence. That
is not just me saying that; that is also what the Iraqi President has
said repeatedly--that it is the Iraqi political leaders' failure to
reach a political settlement that is the cause of the continuing
violence.
That being the case, I don't believe--and I don't think a majority of
this body believes--that an increase in troops going into the middle of
the neighborhoods of Baghdad and staying there--``holding,'' as we
say--is going to contribute to a successful conclusion of our presence
in Iraq. It is not going to help the Iraqis succeed, to put our troops
in their neighborhoods in the middle of the sectarian strife. We are
going to add targets without adding to the essential need of the Iraqis
to face a reality--to stare at their options, to look into an abyss--
civil war or one nation? That has to be their choice. We cannot make it
for them. We can make it easier or harder for them to do it.
The question is whether adding troops into that sectarian cauldron is
going to contribute to their reaching a political solution or indeed
will delay the day, as some of our commanders have said, when they will
reach a political settlement. As a matter of fact, General Casey, the
current commander, emphasized this point on January 2:
The longer we in the U.S. continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's
security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to make
the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias.
General Abizaid said the following:
It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do the work.
Then he said this:
I believe that more American forces prevents the Iraqis
from doing more, from taking responsibility for their own
future.
That is what General Abizaid said in November.
So those are the expressions of our top military commanders who are
there now. I believe they are right. But we need a commander in Iraq.
General Casey is retiring. The question is not whether we agree with a
particular strategy--and we will have an opportunity, hopefully next
week, to vote on whether we agree with the increase of the American
military presence as a way of pressuring the Iraqis or taking the heat
off of their political leaders to reach a political solution. We will
debate that issue.
But we need a commander. We have a qualified commander who has been
nominated. There are other issues General Petraeus is going to have to
face. General Keane, yesterday, pointed this out. We had a hearing in
front of the Armed Services Committee yesterday. General Keane was
there, along with former Secretary of Defense Perry and Ambassador
Ross. General Keane pointed out yesterday that we have a significant
problem which is going to face General Petraeus in Baghdad other than
the violence, other than inserting American forces into neighborhoods
and trying to hold them with American forces, with an American face,
with an American uniform. That is a big enough problem. But the command
arrangements are such that U.S. and Iraqi forces are going to be
operating side by side in those neighborhoods under two separate chains
of
[[Page S1209]]
command, violating the unity of command principle that is so ingrained
in U.S. military doctrine and, indeed, is one of the key principles in
that counterinsurgency manual which General Petraeus helped to create.
He must have unity at the command. They must agree down there on those
streets: Yes or no, are we going into that house or not?
Now, who goes into that house is a critically important issue. Many
of us don't believe it ought to be an American tip of the spear; that
the Iraqi forces have been trained, 150,000 or more, to protect their
country, and they should be the tip of the spear. That is one issue.
There is a great dispute over that issue.
That goes to the heart of the matter as to whether more American
troops are going to help solve this problem. But it complicates the
problem, it exacerbates the problem when you have two commanders on the
ground side by side who have two different chains of command who may
have two different opinions as to who ought to go into that house or
whether that house ought to be entered. That has not been resolved.
That is what General Petraeus is also going to have to face.
General Keane, who is former Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, just
yesterday expressed his strong concern about the command arrangements
but said he was confident that General Petraeus had the ability to
revise the arrangements so that there could be a unity of command. I
hope he is right.
It may be a superhuman task. It may be an impossible task. It is not
a task which ought to face a commander. These issues ought to be worked
out in advance of forces entering into combat situations. But they are
not worked out. So General Petraeus has to figure that out as well as
the major issues that he is going to face.
Mr. President, did I yield myself a particular amount of time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan did not.
The Senator from Michigan has 8 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, during his testimony at his confirmation hearing,
General Petraeus volunteered to provide honest, straightforward reports
to the Congress on a regular basis in recognition of Congress's
oversight responsibilities. We are counting on him doing so. He may
even report to us over a TV network, but he made a commitment. He
volunteered a commitment. This was not something we had to press him to
do.
He said: I am going to regularly report to Congress on whether this
new strategy is working and whether these so-called benchmarks which
the Iraqis have allegedly agreed to, representing their commitments--
when will they produce troops; will those troops, in fact, be subject
to political pressure; will the Iraqis come through with the
commitments relative to the financing of reconstruction? He is going to
report to us on all the commitments which the Iraqis have made, all the
benchmarks which are supposed to be met. I take him at his word. He is
an honorable man, and that is an important representation, again, made
at his initiative.
I believe General Petraeus is highly qualified for his promotion to
the grade of general and his assignment as our senior officer in Iraq
at a very critical and dangerous time. That position needs to be
filled. General Casey is retiring. I will vote for his nomination, and
I urge our colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alabama will
yield for one moment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to correct the record when I said
General Casey was retiring. General Casey is being transferred to a
different position and not retiring. I correct the record on that
point. We still need General Petraeus to fill that position because of
the shift in and the transfer of General Casey, but it is not a
retirement.
I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding so I could correct the
record.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin, our chairman of
the Armed Services Committee and our extraordinarily capable leader.
Mr. President, I would like to be notified in 4 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. When 4 minutes remain?
Mr. SESSIONS. No, after I have spoken for 4 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of points about
General Petraeus. My colleague, Senator Bunning, who knows him
personally from when he served in Kentucky--and has been with him in
Iraq, as I have, will speak longer about him.
I will just say this: General Petraeus was in Iraq in 2003 during the
initial invasion. I met him there when I went on a codel. He impressed
me, and all of us, as an extraordinary leader. He was commander of the
101st Airborne. He is a Ranger and a combat officer. He finished at
West Point at the top of his class. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He
was No. 1 in his class at the Command and Staff General Officer School.
By all accounts, he is a man of the most extraordinary ability.
He came back to Iraq when we realized the training of the Iraqi
military was not progressing effectively. So after he had hardly been
home a year, the President asked him to go back to train the Iraqi
military and police; for 15 months, he went back to Iraq, leaving his
family again. Fortunately, his wife is a daughter of a military officer
and understands our national interest and the lives of American
soldiers are at stake.
He went back to train those officers, and he did that, by all
accounts, to an extraordinarily fine degree, given the difficulties
that entailed. He got to know virtually all the leaders in Iraq. He
doesn't know Prime Minister Maliki, but he knows all the leaders in
Iraq. Then he came back, and his duties for the last year have been to
prepare this manual, the military manual on counterinsurgency. That is
exactly what we are in today, a counterinsurgency operation in Iraq.
I believe we have the finest person this country has to offer to take
a fresh look at the situation. I am an admirer of General Casey and
General Abizaid. I think they worked their hearts out and did a lot of
great things. I never believed they have done anything but a superb
job, but sometimes, we need change and new people. I believe this is
the best person we can send.
General Petraeus promised, as Senator Levin said, which is critically
important, in response to a question I asked, but he had volunteered it
to me in a private conversation: Senator, if you want the truth, I will
tell you. If you send me over there, I am going to tell you what I
think.
I said to him at the hearing: Will you tell the American people how
this thing is going? And if it is not going effectively and we
shouldn't continue, will you tell us?
He said: Yes, sir, I will.
I believed him when he said that. We cannot have a situation in which
we end up 20 years from now with someone writing an autobiography and
saying: I thought the war was lost. Yet I didn't say it at the time. We
need somebody to tell us the truth. I believe he will do that.
We need to support him. The whole infrastructure and bureaucracy of
this Government needs to be responsible to the commander on the ground.
We have a good Ambassador, but in Iraq where we have this much disorder
and military threats, the commander is a leading factor. The people
there respect him. We in the United States look to him to do much of
the work, when much of it is actually being done by the Ambassador and
other agencies of Government. But they need to respond to him because
he understands the situation. We need to have adequate prisons and an
adequate court system. If the soldiers go out and apprehend these
people, where are they going to put them?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 4 minutes has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we need infrastructure, and we need
trainers. General Keane was very positive about General Petraeus and
said some important things about these needs. This manual deals in
great depth with
[[Page S1210]]
almost every issue raised by Senator Levin. So I believe in General
Petraeus; we have the person best able to work through all the joint
command and political issues, as well as the military.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not in any way want to interrupt the
proceeding, but I wonder if I might be recognized, following the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, to address the nomination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor to rise today and
speak in support of the nomination of David Petraeus to become the
commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. I am confident that with
General Petraeus's experience, leadership skills, and judgment, he will
prove to be an outstanding commander.
I can speak from experience because General Petraeus is a personal
friend of mine. Not only is he a friend of mine but also of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
I met General Petraeus initially at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, but
even more importantly, when I made a codel to Iraq in 2004 with former
Senator Zell Miller, we spent some time with General Petraeus and the
101st in Mosul. At that time, he was the commander of the 101st
Airborne Division in Mosul. As many of my colleagues might know, the
101st Air Force is based out of Fort Campbell, KY.
While in Mosul, I had an opportunity to spend some time with General
Petraeus and see his troops in action. What I saw was one of the most
impressive military leaders I have ever met, and I have met a lot of
them.
In his 27 months in Iraq--27 months in Iraq--General Petraeus was
asked to lead a division into battle, to oversee the reconstruction and
governance of Iraq's third largest city, and to build up from virtually
nothing Iraq's army and police force.
General Petraeus not only met all of these challenges, but he
succeeded in showing them a unique type of flexibility and adaptability
in his leadership. I believe this to be a very important skill that
will serve him well in his new mission in Iraq.
While in Iraq, I was able to see firsthand how this skill of
adaptability transcends General Petraeus and was passed on to his
troops serving under his command. It was soon after the fall of Saddam
Hussein when the 101st Airborne Division got the orders to go to Mosul.
They were charged with restarting the city's economy, getting civil
institutions on their feet, and creating a working democracy.
Under the command of General Petraeus, some officers supervised
cement factories, others electricity generation. Soldiers who had
studied military aviation tactics found themselves figuring out how to
run a university, and an artillery officer was responsible for figuring
out how to get the region's oil flowing again.
General Petraeus himself even supervised the city's first elections,
elections of Iraqis of very diverse backgrounds.
How did he do all this? He did it through a partnership between the
U.S. forces and the Iraqis, the exact type of partnership the President
is calling for in his new way forward in Iraq. It is this type of
forward thinking which will help our mission in Iraq to succeed.
General Petraeus has also managed to earn the respect of the Iraqis,
the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias. This type of working relationship of
mutual respect is desperately needed at this time in Iraq. I recognize
it, General Petraeus recognizes it, and so does the President of the
United States.
One of the key components in the President's new strategy in Iraq is
creating a real partnership between U.S. forces and Iraqi forces where
we would effectively train the Iraqis to secure their own neighborhoods
and then act, the U.S. troops, as reserve reinforcements. Through this
training and security, Iraq neighborhoods could once again begin to
rebuild themselves, restoring vital services such as water and
electricity to the Iraqi people. Eventually we can begin to restore
peace to embattled neighborhoods in Baghdad.
This is no easy task, and no one knows that better than General
Petraeus. He has even admitted to it being a daunting task. But I am
confident in his ability to lead. His service in Iraq has equipped him
with expertise in irregular warfare and operations and a true
understanding of the enemy we face.
Like many of my colleagues here on the floor of the Senate, I, too,
was initially skeptical of sending additional reinforcement troops to
Iraq. But I am convinced that we have to allow General Petraeus the
opportunity to succeed in this mission. In this effort, he has offered
to provide Congress with regular reports on the status of his mission,
on the performance and commitment particularly of the Iraqis to their
promises. I, for one, would like to take General Petraeus up on his
offer, and I am sure everyone in the Senate feels the same way.
I believe it is vital that we keep up to date daily on the situation
in Iraq as it changes so we can best help our new commander address the
situation he faces. Judging how the Senate's Armed Services Committee
unanimously voted him out of committee on Wednesday, I know I am not
alone in my confidence in him.
I urge my colleagues today to support General Petraeus's nomination.
I wish him Godspeed in his mission and look forward to seeing the
progress we can make in Iraq under his leadership as we continue to
defeat the terrorists and to win this war against them.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I compliment my distinguished colleague
for his remarks. I am proud to follow and likewise indicate my
unqualified support for General Petraeus, to wish him well, and I hope
he succeeds. We had a thorough hearing in the Armed Services Committee.
I wish to compliment our new chairman, Senator Levin, and the ranking
member, Senator McCain, for the speed and efficiency with which they
managed to get this nomination before the Senate for confirmation.
We have also pending resolutions to address the situation in Iraq,
most specifically our new strategy. I simply say to our leadership, I
hope we can address those resolutions at the earliest possible date
because our forces are engaged in combat as we speak here this morning,
and we certainly do not wish to have debate any way construed as less
than full support for what they are endeavoring to achieve. We wish
them well, and their beloved families here at home, in these perilous
days.
I have concurred steadily, steadfastly in the President's decision--
and it is an absolutely correct position. We cannot let Iraq fail, fail
in the sense to lose the sovereignty they have gained through hard-
earned elections and the opportunity for this Nation to emerge as a
constructive partner toward world peace. Therefore, we must press on.
But I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to provide its views. The
President specifically asked, if there were suggestions, forward them,
speak them, and I and others, in a matter of clear conscience, have
done just that. We shall see what evolves from the resolutions now
pending and possibly other suggestions that could be brought forth by
colleagues in the days to come in the Senate. I do once again urge that
we address it as expeditiously as the joint leadership can determine.
Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee had a hearing. We had the
distinguished former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry; Ambassador Ross,
who is a renowned expert on that region of the world, the Middle East;
and the former Vice Chief of the U.S. Army, now retired, General Keane.
It was excellent testimony. I wish to pick up on one thing General
Keane addressed.
I go back to the President's remarks when he spoke to the Nation on
January 10. He said:
Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The
Iraq government will appoint a military commander and two
deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government
will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across
Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully
deployed,
[[Page S1211]]
there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades
committed to the effort, along with local police. These Iraqi
forces will operate from local police stations--conducting
patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to
gain the trust of the Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our
commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will
change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their
campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to
the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American
force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional
American troops to Iraq. The vast majority--five
brigades--will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will
work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their
formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission:
to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help
them protect the local population, and to help ensure that
the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the
security that Baghdad needs.
I say most respectfully, this poses a command structure, a dual one,
of Iraqi commanders and U.S. commanders, which is unique.
Traditionally, American forces operating in military campaigns have a
unified command. There is the commander, and it goes right on down to
the lieutenant, the head of the patrols, and the platoons. I think this
will require further definition, further study.
I bring to the attention of our distinguished nominee, General
Petraeus, the testimony of General Keane yesterday where, in the course
of a colloquy with me and I think Senator Levin and Senator McCain--
and, indeed, I remember the Senator from Rhode Island--we were quite
concerned about how this unique command and control would work. General
Keane concluded his testimony, in response to a question I posed, by
urging General Petraeus early on to devote some attention to this
question of how this sort of joint command and control is going to
operate.
On the battlefield, decisions must be made in a matter of seconds,
from the platoon level often right up the chain of command. We cannot
have finger-pointing. We cannot have a mission where the Iraqi
lieutenant says we should go left, the American embedded officer or
whatever command America has in that situation says go right, and the
mission not achieve its goal and then the finger-pointing as to which
officer was correct and who was right and who was wrong. We cannot have
that in this situation. It is going to be an extremely complex mission.
Yes, I have put forward, along with other colleagues, recommendations
of how possibly this operation could be conducted with few American
forces, and specifically our resolution says the rules of engagement of
the forces--that is standard military technology--should have some
specificity, hopefully saying: Wherever possible, the Iraqis will bear
the brunt of the sectarian violence. I am very concerned about the
American GI being thrust in the middle of the violence that really has
root causes that go back 1,000 years to the divisions of thought
between Iraqis as to whether they are Sunnis or Shias. It seems to me
that Iraqi forces who have the language capability, who understand the
cultural differences, are far better qualified than the American GI to
do this.
Also, we have another document which was put out which explains the
operations. It lists the President's priorities. It clearly says Iraqis
will be in the lead and on the point. This is a White House document
issued here in the last few days:
The President's New Strategy is Rooted in Six Fundamental
Elements: Let the Iraqis take the lead.
That has to be well defined and well understood. I commend the
President for putting the emphasis on having the Iraqis do that.
So I hope we can go about our debate in an orderly way at the
earliest possible time. I urge Members to be cautious as we proceed.
The feelings on this are quite intense, as they should be, because this
is one of the most pivotal, one of the most important decisions I have
seen come before this body in my now 29th year in the Senate. I hope we
conduct it with sincerity and dignity and huge respect among colleagues
with regard to our differences. I speak for myself and I think those
other nine individuals who worked with me--Senator Bill Nelson, Senator
Susan Collins--this is a truly bipartisan effort.
Whatever we conclude here in the Senate, it is my fervent hope that
it reflects a feeling of bipartisanship because therein is how best we
can help the American public understand this complex situation, to give
their public support. They are strongly behind the troops now. We want
to get them to have a better understanding and a greater confidence in
this new revised strategy going forward. This can best be achieved at
the highest level of bipartisanship we can obtain here on these serious
issues.
I see the distinguished chairman here. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
GEN David Petraeus to be commander of American and allied forces in
Iraq.
General Petraeus has had a long and distinguished career in the U.S.
Army. From the moment he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in
1974, General Petraeus has shown himself to be a dedicated officer and
leader. He has held numerous leadership positions in the Army and has
served throughout the world. Most recently, General Petraeus was the
commander of the NATO training mission to Iraq and before that
commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the first year of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, General Petraeus has earned MPA
and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
and has received many awards and decorations including the
Distinguished Service Medal and the Bronze Star for valor. Furthermore,
he is widely regarded for having written the book on how to conduct
counterinsurgency operations.
I recently met with General Petraeus to discuss the current situation
in Iraq and our need to achieve a stable and secure, self-governing
Iraq. He is clearly aware of the difficult challenges that he will
face. In our meeting and in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, General Petraeus clearly outlined what is at stake in Iraq
and has convinced me that he is the best man to command Multi-national
Force-Iraq at a most challenging time for the United States and the
Iraqi Government.
I have confidence in his pledge to me that he will openly and
honestly tell Congress the situation on the ground as it unfolds and
provide forthright advice regarding the new strategy in Iraq, and I am
heartened by his commitment to the Armed Services Committee to provide
periodic updates on the situation in Iraq.
I have made clear to General Petraeus that I will support him, his
efforts, and our troops in every way, but my support for the
President's new strategy for Iraq is conditioned on seeing measurable
progress by Iraqis in securing and reconstructing their country.
Clearly, based upon his intellect and experience in Iraq and
elsewhere, General Petraeus is an excellent choice to command American
and allied forces in Iraq, and I support his nomination.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to support the
nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus for promotion to General and
Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq. I was pleased to join with my
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to favorably report his
nomination to the full Senate.
General Petraeus has been commended by his superiors and policymakers
alike for his ability to listen, to spend money wisely and use force
intelligently in Iraq. He will bring to this new assignment his
experience from back-to-back tours in Iraq. Most recently, General
Petraeus authored the Army's new counterinsurgency manual. He is truly
one of our most impressive Army leaders today.
On January 10, the President articulated the strategy which General
Petraeus will implement if confirmed to this important post. His
mission will be to clear, hold and build. It will require the use of
force, and negotiations alone won't complete this mission. I have
serious doubts about this plan, especially the President's desire to
send even more troops to Iraq.
Because I feel so strongly that the situation in Iraq is
deteriorating, I have joined with colleagues to draft a non-binding
sense-of-Congress resolution, S. Con. Res. 4, to oppose the surge
[[Page S1212]]
of troops into Baghdad. Senator Warner, Senator Collins and I believe
this resolution avoids partisan rhetoric and provides the Senate a
voice to express their disagreement with the President on his Iraq
policy.
Importantly, this resolution holds the Iraqis accountable and lets
them know that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended. Our resolution
emphasizes the Iraq Study Group's valuable recommendations and
specifically says that our strategy in Iraq ``should be conditioned
upon the Iraqi government's meeting benchmarks that must be specified
by the Administration.''
Along those lines, I hope General Petraeus will be vigorous in
keeping Congress informed of progress he is making in Iraq. We need to
know what the benchmarks are on the military side of the ledger. We
also need to know what is expected of the Iraqis. I hope it's much more
than just showing up; the bar can't be that low. I don't want to
bombard General Petraeus with paperwork--we want and need him in
Baghdad neighborhoods restoring order--but it is vital that we know if
the Iraqis are capable of sharing security responsibilities.
During his office call last week, I told General Petraeus the
expectations from Congress for his success are high, but the hopes of
the American people are even higher. I feel that General Petraeus wants
nothing less than success in Iraq and I look forward to working with
him in the coming months to meet the needs of the troops so they have
the tools they need to complete this mission.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, unless there is someone else who wants to
speak, I have already spoken. I would ask, is the vote scheduled?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes. At the expiration of time, 6
minutes 30 seconds, the vote will occur.
Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on this
side, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of LTG. David H. Petraeus to be General, United States Army? On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy)
would each vote ``yea.''
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from
Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Lott), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) would have voted
``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 33 Ex.]
YEAS--81
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--19
Boxer
Cantwell
Chambliss
Coburn
Craig
Dorgan
Graham
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Martinez
McCain
Roberts
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
The nomination was confirmed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for LTG David H. Petraeus of the
U.S. Army to be general and commander, Multi-National Forces--Iraq. He
is a highly experienced individual with a long history of excellent and
selfless service to this country. I believe he represents the high
caliber and professionalism of our Nation's military, and I wish him
well with an extremely difficult assignment.
But while I am supporting his nomination, I in no way support the
President's policies in Iraq. The President has made the wrong judgment
about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent
basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq, and now by pushing to
put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
The indefinite presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq will not
fix that country's political problems. And as we have seen over the
last few years, sending more troops will not provide the stability in
Iraq that can only come from a political agreement. Congress must
develop the courage to confront this President on what has become one
of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our history.
____________________