[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1302-S1307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        IRAQ AND RELATED ISSUES

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Iraq and Iraq-
related issues. I had the opportunity this past weekend and the 
previous weekend to spend a good deal of time with the Missouri 
National Guard men and women in Missouri who do a great job in 
providing civil response to tremendous problems, whether it is floods 
or tornadoes or, in some instances, an ice storm that was devastating. 
Many of them have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and are going back, and 
they are proud of what they do. They know they are doing the job the 
military was assigned to do, and they are proud of it and we should 
support them.
  Mr. President, it is noteworthy that I mention again my colleague and 
National Guard Caucus Cochair Senator Pat Leahy and I will reintroduce 
the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act 
later today.
  This comprehensive legislation recognizes the paramount contributions 
that our citizen soldiers and airmen have made not only in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but all over the globe and particularly here at home.
  The bill provides four central planks: the elevation of the Guard 
chief to the rank of general, a seat for the chief of the Guard Bureau 
on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; mandates that the Deputy NorthCom 
position be for an eligible National Guard officer; and it allows for 
the National Guard Bureau to identify and validate equipment 
requirements, particularly those unique to the Guard's homeland 
missions.
  When we went after the terrorists in Afghanistan, the Guard was 
there. When we needed to establish order and stability in Iraq, the 
Guard was there. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf 
Coast, the Guard was there. When a natural or man-made disaster 
strikes, the Governors call on the Guard, and the Guard is there. The 
next time America needs military forces overseas, the Guard will be 
there.
  Unfortunately, when the Pentagon makes key decisions that impact the 
Guard, the Guard is still not there.
  The need to empower the National Guard is not only still there but 
grows each day. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle, so 
that the force will not be continually pushed around in policy and 
budget debates within the Pentagon.
  Time and time again, the National Guard has had to rely on the 
Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide 
and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions.
  Our legislation will end this nonsense. We will put the National 
Guard on an equal footing with other decision makers responsible for 
national security and the transformation of the military forces.
  As GEN Steve Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau put it, they 
need to be ``in the huddle'' at the Pentagon if they are to be in the 
game. This will ensure that the next time the 430,000 National Guard 
citizen-soldiers and airmen of the Guard are discussed at the senior 
levels of the Pentagon, the Guard will be there.
  Additionally, I remind my colleagues that the Fiscal Year 2007 
Military Construction and Quality of Life Appropriations bill was not 
passed into law. As a result, approximately $17 billion in new 
construction and BRAC projects authorized by the Congress in 2007 
cannot proceed.
  The military service chiefs have urged the Congress to pass this 
legislation
  The projects funded by the Fiscal Year 2007 MILCON bill are necessary 
to sustain readiness and quality of life for U.S. service personnel. I 
also ask that letter from the Navy and Army Secretaries and Service 
Chiefs that raise concern about the risk by operating under a 
continuing resolution be printed in the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, 
           Commandant of the Marine Corps,
                                Washington, DC, December 22, 2006.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: We are seeking your assistance in 
     lessening the severe burden placed on the Department of the 
     Navy in the absence of a Military Construction, Quality of 
     Life, and Veterans Affairs FY 2007 Appropriations bill, and 
     to offer our continued support for expeditious passage of 
     this important legislation.
       Although the Continuing Resolution (CR) has provided some 
     initial relief, a CR in its

[[Page S1303]]

     current form of all of FY 2007 could severely impact Basic 
     Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Base Realignment and Closure 
     (BRAC) 05 accounts because funding has thus far been limited 
     to the smaller programs requested and enacted in FY 2006 as 
     compared to the larger programs requested in FY 2007. It 
     poses particularly acute problems in the Family Housing 
     Construction, Navy; Military Construction, Navy; and Military 
     Construction Naval Reserve accounts because of the 
     restriction on the award of ``new starts.''
       BAH provides Sailors and Marines monthly cash payments for 
     their housing costs. Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and 
     Modernization funds provide an immediate and visible 
     improvement to quality of life in the workplace. Both of 
     these accounts were moved from the Defense Bill to the 
     Military Construction, Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs 
     for FY-07. It is important that the appropriations be made in 
     the traditional accounts with normal flexibilities. If we are 
     to manage under provisional levels for the full year, the 
     Department must be able to address execution issues that 
     inevitably will arise in these programs.
       The CR is precluding our ability to provide modern, 
     government owned or privatized quality housing to our 
     Sailors, Marines and their families at a time when the Global 
     War on Terror is placing enormous stress on our military and 
     military families. The Department would be unable to complete 
     a long standing Department of Defense goal to obligate funds 
     needed to eliminate all inadequate housing by 2007. 
     Specifically, we would have to postpone construction of 250 
     new homes at Naval Base Guam, and Marine Corps Logistics Base 
     Barstow CA. We would also have to postpone housing 
     privatization projects on over 8,000 homes at Navy and Marine 
     Corps installations in California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 
     Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 
     Carolina, and Texas.
       If we are providing funding for ``new starts,'' we can also 
     improve operational readiness with modernized facilities, 
     reduce national security threats at our nuclear weapons 
     facilities, and provide new training capabilities for our men 
     and women in uniform. Without funding, the Department would 
     be unable to award 44 ``new start'' military construction 
     projects in 11 states and four overseas locations totaling 
     $857 million. One example is the award of two $13 million 
     military construction projects for Mobile User Objective 
     System (MUOS) ground control and tracking stations--one in 
     Hawaii and another in Sigonella, Italy. MUOS is a $6.5 
     billion narrowband UHF satellite communications capability 
     vital to our joint war fighters. There are operational 
     concerns as existing satellite communication systems are 
     failing as they reach the end of their service life. Without 
     these ground stations, planned launches of the MUOS 
     satellites already funded will be delayed, and the Department 
     faces additional costs for spacecraft and ground equipment 
     storage, contractual and additional fees, and other related 
     costs far greater than the cost of the construction.
       With respect to BRAC 05, the CR can stymie our efforts to 
     construct facilities and move equipment and people to 
     receiver locations, and impede our ability to harvest savings 
     and organizational efficiencies already accounted for in the 
     budget. Delaying installation closures jeopardizes our 
     ability to proceed with the many joint recommendations that 
     require complex, sequential moves, all of which by statute 
     must be accomplished by September 2011. The Department of the 
     Navy's share of the Department of Defense BRAC account in FY 
     2007 is $690 million, compared to the FY 2006 enacted amount 
     of $247 million. While the Office of Management and Budget 
     has ruled that ``new starts,'' including BRAC construction, 
     is not a concern in the BRAC 05 account, the current CR is 
     limiting FY 2007 expenditures to the FY 2006 level. We will 
     have to delay an estimated $382 million of BRAC construction 
     and $61 million in civilian personnel moves, reductions, and 
     hiring actions, primarily for BRAC actions in New Orleans, LA 
     and southern California, until funding becomes available.
       Prompt passage of an FY 2007 Military Construction, Quality 
     of Life, and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill would 
     resolve these difficulties. The appropriations bills endorsed 
     by the full House and Senate differed little from the 
     President's budget request for the Department of the Navy. 
     Should an FY 2007 bill prove unattainable, we would ask that 
     you expand the authority in the CR to allow funding to the 
     lower of the FY 2007 House and Senate appropriation bills, 
     and allow for ``new starts'' in military construction and 
     family housing accounts, subject as always to requirements of 
     the Authorization Act.
       We appreciate your continued support for our country's 
     Sailors, Marines and their families. We stand ready to 
     respond to any questions or concerns that you may have.
           Sincerely,
     James T. Conway,
       General, U.S. Marine Corps.
     Michael G. Mullen,
       Admiral, U.S. Navy.
     Donald C. Winter,
       Secretary of the Navy.
                                  ____



                                       Department of the Army,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2006.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: Over the past several years, the 
     Army has executed an aggressive and carefully integrated plan 
     in support of our national security mission. Our plan 
     provides for simultaneous organizing, manning, training, 
     equipping, deploying and redeploying of units and Soldiers, 
     as well as the required materiel. It also lays the foundation 
     for retaining our position as the world's dominant land 
     force, to include base consolidation, restationing of troops, 
     and improvements essential to providing our Soldiers and 
     their families the standard of living they deserve.
       Miltariy construction and quality of life initiatives 
     constitute large, crucial portions of this carefully 
     synchronized plan. Yet, the limitations imposed by the 
     Continuing Resolution (CR) are already causing our plan to 
     fray, and it is likely to unravel completely should we go 
     through the entire fiscal year under a CR. The potential 
     negative effects on operational readiness cannot be 
     overemphasized; the Army's ability to prosecute the Global 
     War On Terrorism and to prepare for future conflicts would be 
     severely hampered.
       As an example, the Army's FY 2007 Military Construction 
     Plan includes almost $400 million to support the Army Modular 
     Force through construction of a battle command training 
     center, vehicle maintenance facility, several brigade complex 
     facilities, barracks and numerous child development centers. 
     Our force rotation plan to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as 
     our overall readiness posture, relies on completing these 
     conversions to the Army Modular Force on time. We have 
     recruited and retained the Soldiers, purchased individual 
     force protection equipment, repaired and replaced weapons, 
     and established a training plan, but now we are faced with 
     the real possibility of not having facilities ready for 
     training, maintenance, communications and command activities. 
     We will have Soldiers at Fort Campbell, Fort Drum, and Fort 
     Stewart who are ready to fight, ready to lead and ready to 
     defend this country, but won't have adequate places to train, 
     work or sleep.
       We will see similar situations in the Reserve Component. 
     The Army National Guard will be without aviation support 
     facilities, field maintenance shops and supply points. The 
     Army Reserve will lack several reserve centers, training 
     facilities and storage facilities. We will put at risk 
     funding or land provided by the states for many of these 
     projects. Citizens eager to serve this country will find a 
     lack of updated facilities.
       Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiatives are quickly 
     coming apart at the seams, as the Army will be limited to 
     spending less than one-fourth of the amount needed to keep 
     approved BRAC moves on schedule. Imbedded in BRAC is the 
     movement of units from overseas back to the United States. 
     Delaying BRAC means we won't meet our the 1st Armored 
     Division from Germany to Fort Bliss and may hinder the 
     establishment of two critically needed modular brigade combat 
     teams. For every brigade combat team affected by these 
     delays, thousands of Soldiers will lack facilities to train 
     and work or, at best, will have only inadequate and outdated 
     facilities.
       In summary, the Army will experience unacceptable delays in 
     constructing much needed facilities unless the Congress can 
     pass a full Military Construction/Quality of Life Bill for FY 
     2007 by February or expand and enhance the next Continuing 
     Resolution to permit the execution of all programs and 
     projects requested in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
       The Army's leadership is prepared to answer any questions 
     you may have. We deeply appreciate your support of our men 
     and women in uniform.
           Sincerely,

                                          Peter J. Schoomaker,

                                      General, United States Army,
                                                   Chief of Staff.
                                                Francis J. Harvey,
                                            Secretary of the Army.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the big questions that is being 
discussed today is what the President's plans are in Iraq and whether 
we should submit a resolution condemning the troop increases. I find it 
passing strange that many of the people pushing for a resolution to say 
we shouldn't send troops just adopted by a unanimous vote the 
confirmation of General Petraeus, who has said he believes he can do 
the job if he has the additional troops. He says the number is 21,000. 
Who are we to second-guess an experienced general who knows what the 
needs of his men and women in service are?
  I have listened to many of the persuasive arguments on the other side 
about their concerns about the Iraq war. There are some who want to cut 
off completely our involvement--cut and run. They have an argument; 
they make a legitimate point. I hope we have a chance to vote on it 
because the intelligence community leaders from DNI to the military 
intelligence head to the CIA said cutting and running now would be a 
disaster resulting in chaos, in additional killing of Iraqi citizens, 
and giving the entire area over to al-Qaida and probably bringing in a 
region-wide conflict. So that is at

[[Page S1304]]

least a position that I understand how they take it, but I will fight 
very hard against it.
  What I don't understand is the people who say they want to do several 
things: They want to see a change in policy in Iraq. They want to see 
more Iraqi responsibility. They want to change the rules of engagement 
so we can go after Shia death squads and there won't be any political 
restrictions on it. And they want to adopt the strategy of the Baker-
Hamilton report. Many of these same people who are now urging the 
adoption of a resolution said we need to send more troops. Well, when 
you look at it, the President is sending some more troops for a new 
strategy which involves the Iraqi leadership, Prime Minister al-Maliki, 
the Shia, as well as the Sunni and Kurdish leaders. They are now 
fighting without limitations on the rules of engagement. Our additional 
forces will be there at the request of al-Maliki to help him stabilize 
the country. This is the last best chance. This is the chance to leave 
a stable Iraq which will not become a terrorist ground for al-Qaida.
  Sunday, I had the opportunity to talk to Jim Baker, the lead name on 
the Baker-Hamilton report. I said: Jim, is the President's surge what 
you recommend militarily? He said yes. That is precisely what the 
Baker-Hamilton commission recommended. He also recommended additional 
diplomatic efforts. But in terms of the military effort, he said: This 
is what we recommended.
  Now, how do we send troops over and then think maybe we can get some 
political cover back home by saying we don't really agree with it? I 
don't think that does anything of real significance. There are some 
things a resolution passed by this Congress expressing disapproval of 
the President's plan would do, and I think they are significant and 
serious.
  No. 1, it would send a message to those we fight against--al-Qaida, 
the Baathists, Sunni insurgents--that we are not serious; we don't 
intend to support our men who are supporting the Iraqi military. It 
gives them cause to fight harder and stay longer.
  No. 2, it sends a message to our friends whom Secretary Rice is 
trying to bring in to help rebuild the economy of Iraq and provide jobs 
for unemployed young Iraqis--essential if we want to win 80 percent of 
the battle against radical Islam, which is ideological. It would tell 
them: you probably better not put too much money on the Iraqis because 
the U.S. Congress is going to pull the plug and then it will descend 
into chaos and any dollars we invest will be gone.
  Third, I would ask my colleagues to think about the message it sends 
to the troops who are there, to the troops who will be going there. 
They are over there fighting. They are risking their lives every day. 
They are willing to take on the fight because they believe it is an 
important fight. They believe it is a fight we can and we must win 
militarily. What message does it send to the families back home? I 
think you can guess what that answer is.
  I saw a very interesting article in the Washington Post on Sunday. 
Robert Kagan at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a 
Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, has written a book. 
He said:

       Grand Delusion: Politicians in Both Parties Act as if They 
     Can Make the War Go Away Soon. It Won't.

  He warns about all we are doing when we have laid out a plan and 
reinforcements for the Iraqi troops. He said:

       Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican 
     Members of Congress are looking for a different kind of 
     political solution: The solution to their problems in 
     presidential primaries and elections almost two years off. 
     Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated 
     on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly, 
     even proudly, admit they are responding to current public 
     mood. Those who think they were elected sometimes to lead 
     rather than to follow seem to be in the minority.

  And he goes on to say that those who call for an end to the war don't 
want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will 
not end but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away.
  As I said, our intelligence community leaders, in open testimony a 
couple of weeks ago before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said if 
we walk away, leaving Iraq without an army and a security force 
adequate to sustain general order, peace and order in that country, not 
only will innocent Iraqis be slaughtered, there will be an open 
invitation for others to come in. How long can the Shias oppress the 
Sunnis without having the Jordanians and the Saudis and maybe the 
Egyptians come in to support them? We have already heard they would do 
that, to protect the Sunnis. And if the Sunni supporters came in, it 
would take about a New York minute for Iran to come in on behalf of the 
Shia. What kind of conflagration would ensue? It would take a lot more 
American troops to protect our ally Israel and to try to stop the 
killing.
  In addition, we know that al-Qaida would have a safe haven. And al-
Qaida is not mad because we are in Iraq; they just want to win in Iraq. 
Muqtada al-Sadr, the No. 2 man, has been very eloquent, and he has been 
backed up by his boss, Osama bin Laden, who says: We have to win. Al-
Qaida needs to restore chaos to Iraq so they will have a safe haven in 
which to operate, train their suicide bombers, their jihadists, develop 
means of command and control once again, perhaps get weapons of mass 
destruction. Well, that is what happens if we walk away and leave Iraq 
in chaos.
  Back to Robert Kagan's piece:

       Some people assume that if we can get the troops withdrawn, 
     then it won't be a problem for all of our Senators running 
     for President in 2008. Should any one of them win, they think 
     by getting out of Iraq now, it won't be a problem.

  Bob Kagan says that:

       That is a delusion. Not only a democratic delusion, but 
     some conservatives and Republicans have thrown up their 
     hands. And they think that if we walk away, somehow the whole 
     mess will simply solve itself and fade away.

  He said:

       Talk about a fantasy. The fact is the United States cannot 
     escape the Iraq crisis or the Middle East crisis of which it 
     is a part and will not be able to escape it for years. And if 
     Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems, 
     but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.

  Well, Mr. President, I think that sets it up very well. I hope our 
colleagues will think about that. I hope they will consider that when 
they are talking about passing a resolution. It sends the wrong message 
to the enemies, to our allies, and to our troops and their families at 
home.
  This war radical Islam has declared on us is a generational war, as 
the President said. We best be laying plans to do our best to protect 
our country from repeated attacks such as September 11 by al-Qaida. 
That is at stake. By being in Iraq, by having good intelligence at 
home, we have been fortunate to avoid another September 11 attack. If 
al-Qaida had planned and regrouped, we would be much more likely to 
have another.
  I ask unanimous consent a copy of the article by Mr. Kagan be printed 
in the Record after my remarks on Iraq.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2007]

Grand Delusion: Politicians in Both Parties Act as if They Can Make the 
                      War Go Away Soon. It Won't.

                           (By Robert Kagan)

       It's quite a juxtaposition. In Iraq, American soldiers are 
     finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of 
     peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad--
     the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution 
     everyone claims to want They've launched attacks on Sunni 
     insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's 
     militia. And they've embarked on these operations with the 
     expectation that reinforcements will soon be on the way: the 
     more than 20,000 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq 
     and the new commander he has appointed to fight the 
     insurgency as it has not been fought since the war began.
       Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican 
     members of Congress are looking for a different kind of 
     political solution: the solution to their problems in 
     presidential primaries and elections almost two years off. 
     Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated 
     on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly, 
     even proudly, admit they are responding to the current public 
     mood, as if that is what they were put in office to do. Those 
     who think they were elected sometimes to lead rather than 
     follow seem to be in a minority.
       The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop 
     increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do 
     instead, other than perhaps go back to the Baker-Hamilton 
     commission's vague plan for a

[[Page S1305]]

     gradual withdrawal. Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to cap the 
     number of troops in Iraq at 137,500. No one explains why this 
     is the right number, why it shouldn't be 20,000 troops lower 
     or higher. But that's not really the point, is it?
       Other critics claim that these are political cop-outs, 
     which they are. These supposedly braver critics demand a 
     cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal 
     within months. But they're not honest either, since they 
     refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: 
     What do they propose the United States do when, as a result 
     of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly 
     horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response 
     should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-
     Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in 
     Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the 
     United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that 
     these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.
       Those who call for an ``end to the war'' don't want to talk 
     about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will 
     not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend 
     that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or 
     are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would 
     favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those 
     new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest 
     and brave.
       Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq 
     at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means 
     of positioning oneself at home.
       To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to 
     believe it is a problem that can be made to go away. Once 
     American forces depart, Iraq will no longer be our problem. 
     Joseph Biden, one of the smartest foreign policy hands in the 
     Senate, recently accused President Bush of sending more 
     troops so that he could pass the Iraq war on to his 
     successor. Biden must assume that if the president took his 
     advice and canceled the troop increase, then somehow Iraq 
     would no longer be a serious crisis when President Biden 
     entered the White House in 2009.
       This is a delusion, but it is by no means only a Democratic 
     delusion. Many conservatives and Republicans, including 
     erstwhile supporters of the war, have thrown up their hands 
     in anger at the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government. They, 
     too, seem to believe that if American troops leave, because 
     Iraqis don't ``deserve'' our help, then somehow the whole 
     mess will solve itself or simply fade away. Talk about a 
     fantasy. The fact is, the United States cannot escape the 
     Iraq crisis, or the Middle East crisis of which it is a part, 
     and will not be able to escape it for years. And if Iraq does 
     collapse, it will not be the end of our problems but the 
     beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.
       I would think that anyone wanting to be president in 
     January 2009 would be hoping and praying that the troop 
     increase works. The United States will be dealing with Iraq 
     one way or another in 2009, no matter what anyone says or 
     does today. The only question is whether it is an Iraq that 
     is salvageable or an Iraq sinking further into chaos and 
     destruction and dragging America along with it.
       A big part of the answer will come soon in the battle for 
     Baghdad. Politicians in both parties should realize that 
     success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the 
     nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, 
     be responsible, and provide the moral and material support 
     our forces need and expect. The next president will thank 
     you.

  Mr. BOND. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I start by telling the Senator from 
Missouri how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue. As the 
ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he knows 
as well as anyone what is at stake in Iraq and in the global war on 
terror. I know his son, Sam, is a member of the Marine Corps and has 
served in Iraq. I believe he is either back or headed back here very 
soon, so this is a matter in which the Senator from Missouri has a 
personal investment, in addition to the larger investment all Americans 
have in making sure our security is protected to the extent possible. 
That is what it boils down to.
  Some say we have to do this for the Iraqis. I suggest, as laudable as 
that is, we need to do this for us. What do I mean by ``this''? I mean 
what the Iraq Study Group--the bipartisan group created to look into 
the challenge of the conflict in Iraq--recommended. They pointed out 
quite clearly that it is in America's vital security interests to leave 
Iraq when we do. Of course, that is the goal we all share. We want to 
leave Iraq, but we must leave Iraq based on conditions where Iraq can 
sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself.
  It is bewildering to see a vote like we saw last Friday in the Senate 
where GEN David Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, was confirmed 
unanimously by this Senate, yet there are those who say: Yes, we are 
going to confirm you, General, unanimously. We are going do say nice 
things about you and your talents and dedication and patriotism that 
you have demonstrated by your service, but the plan that you are the 
architect of, we are not going to support it. We are going to pass a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution which, in his own words, undermines his 
ability to be successful in America's ability to protect its national 
security interests by leaving Iraq in a condition that it can sustain, 
govern, and defend itself, and which sends a wrong message to our 
enemies.
  The consequences of failure in Iraq are best summed up by the Iraq 
Study Group on page 34. They said that a chaotic Iraq would provide a 
still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act 
regionally or even globally. Al-Qaida will portray any failure by the 
United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured 
prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region around the 
world.
  It will surely be a failed state if we leave Iraq before conditions 
on the ground permit the Iraqis to govern, sustain, and defend 
themselves. It will likely lead to a failed state much as Afghanistan 
was after the Soviet Union was run out of Afghanistan in 1979.
  What was that condition? We know all too well on September 11, 2001, 
when America was hit by al-Qaida on our own shores, that what happened 
in the interim between the time the Soviet Union left Afghanistan was a 
rise of the Taliban and al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden, who was 
plotting and planning and training and then exporting terror attacks 
against the United States and against our allies.
  It is entirely probable, in my opinion, that if we leave Iraq 
prematurely, before it can sustain, govern, and defend itself, Iraq 
will become another failed state like Afghanistan, another place where 
terrorists can train, recruit, and then export terrorist attacks 
against the United States and our allies.
  It is also likely that if we leave Iraq prematurely, it would lead to 
a broader regional conflict, probably involving Syria, Iran, Saudi 
Arabia, and Turkey, and we may have to later return at a greater cost 
to our Nation.
  This is another matter to which I don't think the people have paid 
enough attention: to leave Iraq prematurely would lead to massive human 
suffering. The other day, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing on 
Iraqi refugees. Of course, there are brave Iraqis who have worked 
alongside America and our allies to try to restore democracy to that 
country after Saddam's bloodthirsty reign. They are worried, as they 
should be, that if America pulls out, along with our coalition 
partners, before Iraq is able to sustain, govern, and defend itself, 
they will be slaughtered. It will be ethnic cleansing where Shia will 
kill Sunni. It will draw in, likely, the Sunni majority nations such as 
Saudi Arabia to defend the Sunnis against ethnic cleansing.
  We are at a crossroads. The choices are not necessarily good ones, 
but they are the choices with which our Nation is confronted. We can 
either stay with the status quo which, frankly, I don't know anyone who 
believes the status quo is working or, No. 2, we can, as some have 
suggested, cut off funding for our troops and result in a precipitous 
withdrawal from Iraq or, No. 3, we can devise a new strategy in an 
effort to succeed where the current strategy has not in Iraq.
  I believe the obvious choice is No. 3. If we are going to confirm a 
new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, as we have done; if we are 
going to confirm a new general leading coalition forces in Iraq, like 
David Petraeus, as we have done; if we are going to confirm a new 
commander of Central Command, Admiral Fallon, as I am confident we will 
do; we need to ask for their advice, get their advice, and, frankly, 
take their advice. I am afraid this has become far too political and 
not focused, as it should be, on a bipartisan basis, on what is in 
America's strategic and security self-interest.
  The Washington Post summed it up in an editorial this way. They said 
legislators need a better way to act on their opposition to the current 
policy than passing a nonbinding resolution that may cover them 
politically but have no practical impact other than

[[Page S1306]]

perhaps the negative one suggested by the general--and they are talking 
about General Petreaus. What are the negative impacts? General Petreaus 
made that clear in the nomination hearings before the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Senator McCain asked:

       Suppose we send you additional troops and we tell the 
     troops, while we support you, we are convinced you cannot 
     accomplish your mission, and we do not support the mission 
     that we are sending you on. What effect does that have on the 
     morale of the troops?

  General Petraeus:

       Well, it would not be a beneficial effect, sir.

  Senator Lieberman:

       A Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new 
     strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, 
     some feeling that well, some clear expression that the 
     American people are divided?

  General Petraeus:

       That's correct, sir.

  I understand as well as anybody the reservations that Members of the 
Senate have about the new plan. The question we all have is, Will it 
work? Obviously, there are no guarantees. However, I know there is one 
sure plan for failure that will embolden our enemies, undermine our 
allies, and demoralize our troops, and that is to pass a resolution of 
no confidence in the only plan that has now been proposed for a new way 
forward in Iraq: working with the Iraqi Government, Prime Minister 
Maliki, making it clear there are benchmarks they need to meet; that it 
is their country, and they need to take the lead. We will support them. 
We will help stiffen their spine, particularly when it comes to 
preventing sectarian violence and taking on the militias which have 
ruled the streets in so much of Iraq. But this is the only chance and 
the only alternative that has been offered by anyone, so far, as to the 
way forward.
  I make an appeal to our colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle. On November 7, we had an election. As a result of that election, 
Democrats no longer were a minority party but became the majority in 
the Congress, both in the House and in the Senate. While I understand 
that as a minority party frequently we do not have the opportunity to 
set the agenda or to provide the leadership and are left with 
criticizing what the majority party does, my hope would be that the new 
majority would rise to the occasion, would set partisanship aside as 
much as possible, particularly with regard to our national security 
interests, would not focus on the 2008 election or worry about 
individual political outcomes. My hope is the new majority would use 
this as an opportunity to work with the new minority to send a vote of 
confidence and to provide a plan, support for the plan that has been 
drafted by General Petraeus and supported by all our military 
leadership for the possibility of a successful way forward in Iraq.
  Frankly, for our friends on the other side of the aisle to merely 
criticize and offer resolutions of no confidence that are not binding 
is not an act of encouragement. It is not an act of patriotism but, 
unfortunately, as General Petraeus said, it will undermine our troops' 
morale and embolden our enemies. We all owe it to the troops who have 
risked their lives, to the families who have paid the ultimate 
sacrifice in defense of freedom and to protect our security, to do our 
very best to work together to try to support a way forward in Iraq 
which has the best chance of success.
  My hope is, in the coming days, through this debate, we will agree to 
do that, and we will avoid making political statements that have no 
binding effect and which serve only to embolden our enemies and 
undermine our friends.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona on the floor of the 
Senate, and I yield to him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from Texas, 
in urging the Senate to think very carefully about passing what appears 
to be a nonbinding resolution, but what, in fact, has dramatic 
consequences.
  It is true that a nonbinding resolution would not change the policy 
of the President; he is the Commander in Chief. He has decided on a new 
strategy after consultation with a lot of people, and that new strategy 
is now being implemented in Iraq as we speak.
  The Senate, last Friday, confirmed GEN David Petraeus to carry out 
that policy. By the way, it seems quite incongruous we would, on the 
one hand, confirm General Petraeus, pat him on the back, and say: Go do 
the mission in Iraq--by the way, we disagree with the mission. That is 
one of the bad messages that is sent.
  I would like to talk a little bit more about the sending of messages 
with the nonbinding resolutions. That is obviously what the proponents 
of the resolutions would like to do. They have talked about sending a 
message. Mostly they are trying to send a message to the President. Of 
course, any Senator who wants to talk to the President has that 
capability. We do not need to send messages to the President publicly 
in areas that cause harm. We should think about the consequences of 
such a message to our enemies, to our allies, and most especially to 
the troops that we send in harm's way.
  Think for a moment about the consequences of a message that says that 
we disagree with the President's strategy, we disagree with the 
mission, and we don't believe that any more troops should be involved 
or that the United States should remain in Iraq beyond a very limited 
period of time. The message that sends to our enemies is a devastating 
one.
  As General Petraeus testified before the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, war is about breaking the will of your opponent. He feared 
the consequences of such a resolution which he said would not be 
helpful because it would send a signal to our enemies that we don't 
have the support in the United States Government necessary to break the 
will of the opponent.
  These terrorists well understand this is a contest of wills. Can they 
outlast us? Osama bin Laden thinks we are the ``weak horse,'' as he 
puts it, and he is the ``strong horse''; that we left Vietnam, that we 
left Lebanon, that we left Somalia, and we will leave Iraq before the 
job is done as well. And he believes that. So there is a test of wills 
going on. And if the enemies come to believe they can outlast us, that 
their will is stronger than ours, then it is very difficult to defeat 
them in this war against terrorism.
  The message it sends to our allies is we are not necessarily a 
reliable ally. Certainly, to people in the neighborhood--the people in 
Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and elsewhere--you can imagine they would 
quickly begin to hedge their bets because of the neighborhood in which 
they live. If we are going to leave, and they have to continue to live 
with these bad actors, then, as before September 11, you will see them 
begin to hedge their bets and provide support for, in one way or 
another, terrorists who live in that neighborhood. That is against the 
national security interest of the United States.
  The message that is sent to our troops is perhaps the most 
devastating because it says: We have sent you on a mission, and yet we 
do not believe in the mission. We are putting you in harm's way. You 
may, in fact, die trying to complete your mission, but it is not a 
mission that we believe in.
  Think about the message that sends to the troops and to the families.
  Very interestingly, last Friday, ``NBC Nightly News'' had an 
interview with three soldiers from Iraq talking about this very point. 
It was in the Brian Williams newscast. He called on Richard Engel, 
reporting from Baghdad, who had interviewed these three soldiers. I 
think what they had to say should instruct us. He talked about the new 
mission they were on, and he said:

       It's not just the new mission the soldiers are adjusting 
     to. They have something else on their minds:

  This is David Engel, the reporter, speaking--

     the growing debate at home about the war. Troops here say 
     they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the 
     war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism 
     of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old 
     Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He 
     thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like 
     firsthand before criticizing.

  Then, this is what SPC Tyler Johnson said:

       Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may 
     support--``Oh, we support the troops,'' but you're not 
     supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what 
     they believe for, what we die for. It just don't make sense 
     to me.


[[Page S1307]]


  Engel then said:

       Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun has served in Afghanistan and 
     is now in his second tour in Iraq. He says people back home 
     can't have it both ways.

  Then SSG Manuel Sahagun said:

       One thing I don't like is when people back home say they 
     support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're 
     going to support us, support us all the way.

  Finally, Engel said:

       Specialist Peter Manna thinks people have forgotten the 
     toll the war has taken.

  SPC Peter Manna said:

       If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that 
     we've done here is all in vain.

  Engel closed his report saying:

       Apache Company has lost two soldiers and now worries their 
     country may be abandoning the mission they died for.

  That is the message we send to our troops: that they may be dying in 
vain, that they may be putting their life on the line in vain because 
we do not support the mission we put them in harm's way to accomplish. 
That is a devastating blow to morale.
  Just imagine what you would do if you were the parent or the spouse 
of one of those soldiers who got killed and came to believe the mission 
we had sent them on was no longer a mission that we supported, and yet 
we continue to keep them in harm's way.
  My view is, if you think this war is lost or that we cannot win it, 
that you have the courage of your convictions and vote to cut off the 
funds and bring the folks home right now before any more die. But if 
you believe, as the President does, that we must not leave Iraq a 
failed state, that there is still an opportunity there to succeed, and 
that his plan deserves a chance to succeed, then we should not support 
resolutions that send a different message.
  That is why I want to urge my colleagues to think very carefully 
before supporting any of these resolutions which may be nonbinding on 
the President but, nevertheless, have severe consequences to our 
enemies, to our allies, and to the troops we put into harm's way. This 
is serious business we are about. We need to consider it seriously and 
not undercut the troops we put in harm's way.

                          ____________________