[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1343-S1344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 433. A bill to state United States policy for Iraq, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, there are countless reasons that the 
American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, 
but chief among them has been the Administration's insistence on making 
promises and assurances about progress and victory that have no basis 
whatsoever in the reality of the facts on the ground.
  We have been told that we would be greeted as liberators. We have 
been promised that the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been 
assured again and again that we were making progress, that the Iraqis 
would soon stand up, that our brave sons and daughters could soon stand 
down. We have been asked to wait, and asked to be patient, and asked to 
give the President and the new Iraqi government six more months, and 
then six more months after that, and then six more months after that.
  Despite all of this, a change of course still seemed possible. Back 
in November, the American people had voted for a new direction in Iraq. 
Secretary Rumsfeld was on his way out at the Pentagon. The Iraq Study 
Group was poised to offer a bipartisan consensus. The President was 
conducting his own review. After years of missteps and mistakes, it was 
time for a responsible policy grounded in reality, not ideology.
  Instead, the President ignored the counsel of expert civilians and 
experienced soldiers, the hard-won consensus of prominent Republicans 
and Democrats, and the clear will of the American people.
  The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, 
despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the 
terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended 
authority to wage this war in 2002. Over four years later, we cannot 
revisit that decision or reverse its outcome, but we can do what we 
didn't back then and refuse to give this President more open-ended 
authority for this war.
  The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. 
Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no 
quantity of American soldiers can solve the political differences at 
the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in 
the hearts of the combatants.
  I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. As the 
President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents 
the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It's 
even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror, as some of the 
extra soldiers could come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban 
has become resurgent.
  The course the President is pursuing fails to recognize the 
fundamental reality that the solution to the violence in Iraq is 
political, not military. He has offered no evidence that more U.S. 
troops will be able to pressure Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds towards the 
necessary political settlement, and he's attached no conditions or 
consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress.
  In fact, just a few weeks ago, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice 
what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the benchmarks 
that the Administration has called for, she could not give me an 
answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in 
which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress 
would mean the end of our military commitment, she still could not give 
me an answer.
  This is not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how 
many more lives it will take to end a policy that everyone knows has 
failed, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.
  Over the past four years, we have given this Administration chance 
after chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us so many 
times. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more 
mistakes. Today, I am introducing legislation that rejects this policy 
of escalation, and implements a comprehensive approach that will 
promote stability in Iraq, protect our interests in the region, and 
bring this war to a responsible end.
  My legislation essentially puts into law the speech I gave in 
November, 2006, and is, I believe, the best strategy for going forward.
  The bill implements--with the force of law--a responsible 
redeployment of our forces out of Iraq, not a precipitous withdrawal. 
It implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. 
It applies real leverage on the Iraqis to reach the political solution 
necessary to end the sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart. It 
holds the Iraqi government accountable, making continued U.S. support 
conditional on concrete Iraqi progress. It respects the role of 
military commanders, while fulfilling Congress's responsibility to 
uphold the Constitution and heed the will of the American people.
  First, this legislation caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the 
number in Iraq on January 10, 2007--the day the President gave his 
``surge speech'' to the nation. This cap could not be lifted without 
explicit authorization by the Congress.
  Yet our responsibilities to the American people and to our servicemen 
and women go beyond opposing this ill-conceived escalation. We must 
fashion a comprehensive strategy to accomplish what the President's 
surge fails to do: pressure the Iraqi government to reach a political 
settlement, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to 
a responsible end.
  That is why my legislation commences a phased redeployment of U.S. 
troops to begin on May 1, 2007 with a goal of having all combat 
brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with 
the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. The legislation provides 
exceptions for force protection, counterterrorism, and training of 
Iraqi security forces.
  To press the Iraqi government to act, this drawdown can be suspended 
for 90-day periods if the President certifies and the Congress agrees 
that the Iraqi government is meeting specific benchmarks and the 
suspension is in the national security interests of the United States. 
These benchmarks include: Meeting security responsibilities. The Iraqi 
government must deploy brigades it promised to Baghdad, lift 
restrictions on the operations of the U.S. military, and make 
significant progress toward assuming full responsibility for the 
security of Iraq's provinces. Cracking down on sectarian violence. The 
Iraqi government must make significant progress toward reducing the 
size and influence of sectarian militias, and the presence of militia 
elements within the Iraqi Security Forces. Advancing national 
reconciliation. The Iraqi government must pass legislation to share oil 
revenues equitably; revise de-Baathification to enable more Iraqis to 
return to government service; hold provisional elections by the end of 
the year; and amend the Constitution in a manner that sustains 
reconciliation. Making economic progress. The Iraqi government must 
make available at least $10,000,000,000 for reconstruction, job 
creation, and economic development as it has promised to do. The 
allocation of these resources, the provision of services, and the 
administration of Iraqi Ministries must not proceed on a sectarian 
basis.
  These benchmarks reflect actions proposed by the President and 
promised by the Iraqi government. It is time to hold them accountable.
  Recognizing that the President has not been straightforward with the 
American people about the war in Iraq, my legislation allows the 
Congress--under expedited procedures--to overrule a Presidential 
certification and continue the redeployment.
  Time and again, we have seen deadlines for Iraqi actions come and 
go--with no consequences. Time and again we have heard pledges of 
progress from the administration--followed by a descent into chaos. The 
commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq represents our best leverage to press 
the Iraqis to act. And the further commitment of U.S. economic 
assistance to the Government of Iraq must be conditional on Iraqi 
action.
  As the U.S. drawdown proceeds, my legislation outlines how U.S. 
troops

[[Page S1344]]

should be redeployed back to the United States and to other points in 
the region. In the region, we need to maintain a substantial over-the-
horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider 
war, to reassure our allies, and to protect our interests. And we 
should redeploy forces to Afghanistan, so we not just echo--but 
answer--NATO's call for more troops in this critical fight against 
terrorism.
  Within Iraq, we may need to maintain a residual troop presence to 
protect U.S. personnel and facilities, go after international 
terrorists, and continue training efforts. My legislation allows for 
these critical but narrow exceptions as the redeployment proceeds and 
is ultimately completed.
  My legislation makes it U.S. policy to undertake a comprehensive 
diplomatic strategy to promote a political solution within Iraq, and to 
prevent wider regional strife. This diplomatic effort must include our 
friends in the region, but it should also include Syria and Iran, who 
need to be part of the conversation about stabilizing Iraq. Not talking 
is getting us nowhere. Not talking is not making us more secure, nor is 
it weakening our adversaries.
  The President should appoint a special envoy with responsibility to 
implement this regional engagement. And as we go forward, we must make 
it clear that redeployment does not mean disengagement from the region. 
On the contrary, it is time for a more comprehensive engagement that 
skillfully uses all tools of American power.
  Finally, my legislation compels the President to formulate a strategy 
to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider conflagration.
  Let me conclude by saying that there are no good options in Iraq. We 
cannot undo the mistake of that congressional authorization, or the 
tragedies of the last four years.
  Just as I have been constant in my strong opposition to this war, I 
have consistently believed that opposition must be responsible. As 
reckless as we were in getting into Iraq, we have to be as careful 
getting out. We have significant strategic interests in Iraq and the 
region. We have a humanitarian responsibility to help the Iraqi people. 
Above all, we have an obligation to support our courageous men and 
women in uniform--and their families back home--who have sacrificed 
beyond measure.
  It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action--for the 
United States, for Iraq, and for our troops--is to oppose this reckless 
escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy is consistent with 
what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the 
recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the 
American people demanded in November.
  When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and 
assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been 
lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the 
President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and 
experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis 
themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis 
their country back. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the 
wider struggle against terror yet to be won.
                                 ______