[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1678-S1684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, last Friday I had the privilege of
attending and speaking before a ``Farewell Dinner'' in honor of LTG
David Petraeus at the Command and Staff College of the U.S. Army at
Fort Leavenworth, KS.
To say the least, it was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the
general and his wife, who has become admired and beloved serving as the
Commanding General of the Army's Intellectual Center. I estimate there
were around 250 officers and their wives and many from the Leavenworth
community to pay tribute to General and Mrs. Petraeus, to wish them
well, and to express pride and confidence in the general's immediate
mission. He left for Iraq this past Monday, 2 days ago.
Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with
David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive
knowledge with regard to the war in Iraq, the history of the region,
and his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars of
insurgency and the insurgency we face in Iraq. While at the Command and
Staff school, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let
me say as a former marine who helped write a similar manual years ago
for the U.S. Marine Corps, I find this man unique in his knowledge and
his command ability.
I made a few remarks at the dinner, and being a Senator, why, the
remarks turned into a speech with some additional strongly held beliefs
that I had penciled out in addition to my prepared remarks in behalf of
General and Mrs. Petraeus. I thought twice about saying some very frank
and candid views, but as everybody knows, marines don't hold back. So
concluding my comments, I was glad I said what I said in that virtually
everybody in the room--all 250--told me that I had said what they could
not say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their
enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on
policy decisions or politics no matter how strongly they feel. They
follow orders and they serve their country.
I feel somewhat the same trepidation today. However, I believe my
remarks to the general, his officer corps, veterans of previous wars,
are dead on to
[[Page S1679]]
the issue we face in this debate that we have been talking about here
on the floor of the Senate.
Before I express my views, I would stress I regret that we are at a
stalemate in this body allegedly debating the issue of vital national
security, and I think most in the Senate wish we could do just that and
do it with comity, cooperation and, yes, in bipartisan fashion. The
American people, who are concerned and frustrated and angry about the
war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case.
This issue is wrapped around a partisan and political axle procedure.
My friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of
the three nonbinding resolutions regarding the war in Iraq, and only
that resolution. They wanted to debate and vote on the Warner
resolution and call it a day. The Warner resolution supports the troops
but not the mission. Let me repeat that: It supports the troops but not
the mission. That is a most unique position, to say the least, and that
is about as far as my colleagues across the aisle wish to wade in the
waters of withdrawal at this particular time.
I also mention it might be helpful if we could consider the Feingold
resolution. Senator Feingold's resolution actually does something and
should be considered in the Senate, as well. Others wish to debate and
vote upon the McCain resolution and the Gregg resolution, but we are
being denied that opportunity.
Now, to those in the press--of which I see none--those covering this
debate within the media, how on Earth can you describe this situation
by writing headlines in 15-second news sound bites, stating Republicans
had voted to stifle debate on the war? Yes, let's debate and vote on
the Warner resolution. That is entirely proper and right. But let's
also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain and
Gregg and, perhaps, Feingold. By the way, I intend to vote for McCain
and Gregg if I get the chance. I do not share the resolution in regard
to Senator Feingold, but I defend his honor to introduce it and to
debate it.
We are not stifling or shutting down debate. They are. Hello up
there. Is there any way you can discern that? I can help you. I majored
in journalism. I used to be a newspaper editor. This is like playing
baseball with one strike and you are out. What happened to my other two
strikes? Well, sorry, back to the dugout. We are going to go to the
continuing resolution. We run this ball game.
In any case, in my remarks last Friday at Fort Leavenworth, I said to
General Petreaus and the crowd that was assembled in his honor:
Throughout our history as a Nation there have been numerous
times when a Commander in Chief badly needed a Commanding
General with keen intellect and raw courage. However, I do
not think that it is a slight exaggeration to suggest the
last time one was this badly needed was 144 years ago, the
year 1853, when President Lincoln covered General Grant.
There are other historical allegories of tremendous
consequence. General Washington selected Nathaniel Green at a
crucial time in our Revolutionary War. Mr. Green was a
blacksmith's assistant. There was no understanding of rank at
this time. And he reputedly stuttered badly. He must have led
by example.
As most military historians know, Grant was discharged from
the Army for drinking. He went back home to Illinois. He
failed in farming. And he failed in running a mercantile
store. Four months into the war, he joined the Illinois
Volunteer Regiment, was reinstalled as an officer. Lincoln
chose Grant over many, many others.
As an aside, Sherman was a good friend of Grant and was
discharged for ``insanity.'' When he came back to the Army,
he made a famous remark about his friend: ``He was with me
when I was insane and I was with him when he was drunk.''
Then, of course, there was Ike. Selected by General
Marshall and agreed to by Franklin Roosevelt, he was picked
due to his particular talent of getting people, some with
tremendous egos, to come together in common cause. Eisenhower
was picked over 30 to 40 senior officers.
Then, just as now, our Nation stands at a critical
crossroads. Now, just as then, the freedom of many thousands
of people is at stake. Also at stake is the safety and
security of the United States of America.
Now, remember, these remarks came at a dinner for General Petreaus at
the U.S. Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.
So I said to the general: General Petreaus, you and I have not been
personally acquainted over a long period of years. Yet in our
relatively short span of time I have come to know you well. I have had
many stimulating and enjoyable conversations with you over a wide range
of issues--Lawrence of Arabia, the British experience in Iraq--so I
know full well you are exactly the right man for the job at the right
time.
Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very
best leadership, and they are getting it with General Petreaus.
I told him: You have captured America's imagination and enter this
job with an enormous reservoir of goodwill.
However, it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed
General Petreaus without a dissenting vote--not one--a vote of
confidence unique given today's controversy, turmoil, and times.
Yet, at the same time, the same Senators who give you their vote of
confidence are now in the business of proposing what I call ``confetti
resolutions,'' supporting you and the troops but not the mission you
are about to undertake. That, to me, is unprecedented for the Senate
and, to me, it is astounding. These resolutions are nonbinding. They
have no legislative impact. They are the so-called sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions--meaningless except for the message you wish to send to the
Executive and the folks back home or for whatever purpose you might
have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. With all due respect, we have
crossed the Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our
allies, our troops, the American people, the media, and, yes, our
adversaries. Don't forget our adversaries.
Words have consequences. Rest assured, unlike some of my colleagues,
our adversaries will read every word and try to figure out and analyze
each sentence of these resolutions. And I suspect they will scratch
their heads and try to discern the sense and the reading of a
resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander
with new rules of engagement with a limited timeframe for achieving and
reporting benchmarks of progress but that opposes the mission. That
mixed message should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the
estimated 31 terrorist organizations we have planning various attacks
around the world.
However, my real concern is that the Senate is not considering or
even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let
alone our responsibilities should they happen. I make it clear, I don't
question the intent, purpose, or patriotism of any Senator, regardless
of the resolution, but I do question judgment and the law of unintended
effects. Bluntly put, with all of this debate with regard to nonbinding
resolutions, we appear like lemmings, splashing in a sea of public
concern, frustration, and anger over the war in Iraq. I understand
that.
In this regard, I should stress, I do not know of anybody in this
Senate or the House of Representatives or anyone in America who does
not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability
in Iraq, if possible. That is not the issue.
When all of this confetti settles--and it is settling, apparently,
because we are going to a continuing resolution and we will not have a
vote on any of the resolutions--the end result of all this frenzy will
be: General, you and the troops have our solid support, but we don't
support your mission. However, press on, and good luck.
What kind of message is that? This is not a profile in courage. This
is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on
nonbinding resolutions, let's at least consider resolutions that will
send a clear message or that can be of useful purpose. In that regard,
we should consider the McCain resolution that lists benchmarks of
progress, that General Petreaus has told me would be useful in his
discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, certainly the Gregg resolution
that supports funding for our troops in harm's way. But that is the
killer in this debate because my colleagues across the aisle do not
want to vote on the Gregg resolution. Now we are not going to vote on
any resolution. The only thing we voted on was cloture.
As a matter of fact, I think we should vote on a resolution, as I
said before, proposed by Senator Feingold, a resolution that certainly
does something. I do not agree with his resolution, but he is at least
forthright and has the courage and sends a clear message.
[[Page S1680]]
As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate,
let me stress what has not happened in the Congress or the media and
has received very little public discussion regarding this challenge
that we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what
will happen if we simply withdraw. And we may just do that because I do
not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see
progress in the next 6 months.
I would also like to point out that most of the time deadlines for
withdrawal that have been proposed or are in the nonbinding resolutions
mirror exactly the same time period that General Petreaus told the
Committee on Armed Services he would follow in reporting whether this
new effort is making measurable progress along the lines of the
benchmarks within the McCain resolution. The obvious question is, Who
can make a better judgment? Who can better make that judgment, General
Petreaus, in theater, or Senators conducting theater?
We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will
confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or even how to
withdraw. The reality is, what will we do when certain consequences
take place? These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we
should be confronting, debating, and explaining to the American people
and the media, even if some have a deaf ear. First, a dramatic increase
in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war, not the civil
war that people say exists today but a real civil war and a
humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now;
Shia versus Shia, Sunni versus Sunni, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do?
Second, given a civil war and a struggle for control, we can expect
an incursion of Sunni troops from other Middle Eastern countries to
prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an
Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr whose street appeal will endanger their own
governments. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we
do?
Third, we can expect an Iraq dominated by Iran, thus completing a
Shia crescent with Iran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon--and Lebanon is
going through its own problems, to say the least. Today, countries such
as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own
nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and their
progress. Iran just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the
possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve
nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?
Fourth, Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time, it
is for real. No, not the 2002 NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, that
we all agree was an egregious error. What do we do?
Fifth, in their eyes, with defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months
away--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists
around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning
more attacks. That is, of course, if you believe what they say. So what
do we do?
Sixth, we can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American
resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the
world, resulting in additional national security threats. Read Putin
and Belarus; Kim Jong Il, with his penchant for missile launches on the
Fourth of July; read Hugo Chavez--the Southern Hemisphere's new
Castro--nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five
different countries. What about American resolve? What do we do?
I realize in today's climate the obvious answer to ``What do we do?''
is simply to blame President Bush. But the point is that globally and
over the long term, this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or
Republican issue or even how you feel about Iraq or the views of the
so-called international community.
Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution
or three--or apparently just have a vote on cloture and say that is the
end of it--terrorist organizations and their second-generation
affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the
United States and throughout the world, even as I speak. It is obvious
we cannot really sustain the status quo in Iraq. But while we debate
how to proceed, they are not giving up.
Now, given the fact there were at least five successful attacks
killing Americans--and others that, thank God, were not successful--
before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq
and given the fact that this threat will face the next President--yes,
the next President--and future world leaders, surely, surely we can
figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists,
then and now and in the future, do not kill according to party
affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender. If you were on one of
those planes the terrorists were planning to send--nine of them--over
the Atlantic to American cities, and they went down and exploded in an
American city or simply went down in the ocean, it would not make any
difference if you were Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative,
or anything--you would be dead. It would not make any difference.
We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the
war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the
war. We need an American approach to our national security and the war
and our individual freedoms.
This is a time to engage in honest dialog to work together and think
through and agree on strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the
American people safe--look at those consequences of our actions that we
have not even discussed on what may happen--and, yes, bring our troops
home but in a way that we do not have to send them back.
My colleagues, I started my remarks by saying the majority of these
comments came from a speech I gave at the dinner honoring GEN David
Petraeus and his wife Holly at our Leavenworth Command and Staff
College in Kansas last Friday prior to David Petraeus leaving for Iraq
this Monday. I closed those remarks by saying I was confident that
under his leadership, this new mission with new rules of engagement,
our chances of success were greater because failure is not in David
Petraeus. It never has and it never will be. So America's destiny and
God's blessings are riding on the shoulders of GEN David Petraeus. And
I closed by saying I was proud to offer him my full support and to call
him a friend.
So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, and to all of my
colleagues, let us end this business of nonbinding resolutions and get
these confetti resolutions behind us. Vote on all four. Vote on all
three. But let's not have the headlines that Republicans are trying to
shut down debate on Iraq. That is just not the case. We should vote in
regard to the Warner resolution, the McCain resolution, the Gregg
resolution, and as far as I am concerned the Feingold resolution, if we
must. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war. We need to vote
on the three resolutions--maybe four--and come together with bipartisan
commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but a task that
must be undertaken for the sake of our national security.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 10 minutes 23
seconds.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the 10 minutes 23 seconds to my
colleague and my friend, Senator Thune.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for yielding and
commend him on an incredibly eloquent and insightful explanation of the
events of the day, why what we are doing in Iraq is so important. He is
someone who has 10 years of experience on the Armed Services Committee.
Has served as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He has a great
depth of knowledge when it comes to national security matters, foreign
policy, and particularly with respect to the current debate about the
Middle East. So I thank him for his great comments.
I just want to point out that with respect to this debate, I had
watched, as everyone else did, I think, yesterday what unfolded on the
floor. I believe what happened in the last 24 hours has demonstrated
what a charade this whole Iraqi resolution process has been.
[[Page S1681]]
This is serious business. This is the most serious business we will
deal with in the Senate. Young Americans are fighting and dying in
Iraq. I would say, having been to Iraq on three different occasions--
most recently about 6 weeks ago--things in Baghdad are not going well.
There are other parts of Iraq where we have made much better progress,
even in some parts of western Iraq where we have gotten some buy-in
from some of the local sheiks who have decided to participate in the
democratic process and support the effort to provide security in that
region of Iraq. But the fact is, things in Baghdad are not good.
What that has prompted is a change in strategy. We have undertaken a
new strategy. That strategy, of course, is something where the
Democrats in the Senate--less Senator Lieberman--and a handful of
Republicans have decided to put together a resolution to oppose. That
resolution, in my view, is an absolutely wrong way to approach what we
are trying to accomplish in Iraq today, but it is obviously their
prerogative to be able to do that. I think they ought to get a vote on
it. I will not vote with them. I disagree, as I said, intensely with
that resolution and its message. I know many of my colleagues on the
other side intend that message to be different than it is perceived by
our troops and by our enemies, but I think what we have to contend with
here when we send a message like that is, how is that perceived by
those audiences that are going to be impacted by it and, namely, our
troops, the young men and women who wear the uniform, and, of course,
obviously, the enemy they are trying to fight? It is the absolute wrong
message to send at the very time our troops are embarking on a new
mission.
This may be our last shot at success in Iraq. We have a new
commander, GEN David Petraeus, whom my colleague from Kansas just
mentioned. We have new rules of engagement on the ground in Baghdad,
and we have new conditions for the Iraqis to meet. They have to take on
the militias. There are military benchmarks they have to meet. There
are economic benchmarks. They have to figure out a way to divide the
oil revenues. They have agreed to invest $10 billion in infrastructure.
There are political benchmarks they have to meet, holding provincial
elections.
There have been resolutions offered on the floor that address those
benchmarks but at the same time express support for this mission.
Everyone agrees on the consequences of failure. As, again, my colleague
from Kansas so very eloquently pointed out, it would be a humanitarian
disaster in Iraq--possible genocide, possible full-blown civil war at a
minimum regional instability, Shiite versus Shiite, Sunni versus
Shiite; an increase in Iranian power on the Arabian peninsula. I do not
know if this new strategy is going to work, but I do know this: We owe
it to those who have sacrificed so much to achieve success in that
mission already to make sure we give this strategy an opportunity to
work.
I mentioned yesterday that I attended a couple of National Guard
welcoming-home ceremonies over the weekend in my home State of South
Dakota, one of which was Charlie Battery, a unit which was deployed to
Iraq for over a year and a unit which was hit incredibly hard. They
were in a very dangerous area in Baghdad going about the mission of
trying to train the Iraqi security police in that area. Because of some
IEDs, we lost four of those young men. And their families--as I visit
with them--cannot help but show the pain they are experiencing and yet
the incredible sense of loyalty and duty they feel to their country and
to the missions and what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Two
others of those were soldiers, one seriously injured, another also
injured, both recovering from those injuries. But the point, very
simply, is there is a cost to what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.
Many of our troops have already borne that cost. The point, very
simply, is their sacrifice should not be in vain.
The troops we are sending now into this region are going whether we
like it or not and irrespective of what the Senate does. The Senate
will be sending them a vote of no confidence if we adopt a resolution
saying: We support you, but we do not believe you can achieve victory,
we do not believe you can accomplish your mission there in Iraq, we do
not believe you can win.
On the substance, that resolution is a bad idea, but, more
importantly, it seems to me it was designed more as a political
statement. That came into full view yesterday when the Republican
leader gave the Democratic leader exactly what they had wanted, which
was a debate here on the floor of the Senate on two resolutions. We
insisted on more resolutions. As my colleague from Kansas said, we
wanted to have a debate on the Warner resolution, on the McCain
resolution, on the Gregg resolution, even on the Feingold resolution.
As I said, we could all decide how we are going to vote, but we would
enter into that debate. And there ought to be, if there is going to be
a debate in the Senate, a full debate. But, frankly, the Democrats
objected to even debating two resolutions, the Warner resolution and
the alternative Gregg resolution, because that would have forced them
to vote on funding, a vote they did not want to have.
The American people deserve a full debate, not a one-sided debate,
not a debate in which one side dictates the terms. This ought to be a
debate about the full range of options that are available, the full
views of the Members of this body who represent their constituencies
across this country.
I heard one of my colleagues say--last week, I think it was, on the
Democratic side--they wanted a full-throated debate. Well, we saw what
a hoax that was yesterday. The agenda was exposed, and the charade
about a full-throated debate came to a crashing halt.
The American people and the Members of this body deserve a debate.
This is the most important issue of our time. As I said earlier, young
Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if we are going to debate
this issue in the Senate, let's make this debate about substance, not
about political statements. Let's make sure all the views in this body
are heard.
We tried to do that yesterday by essentially agreeing to what the
Democratic leadership had asked for; that is, two resolutions, the
Warner resolution, which I happen to disagree with and would vote
against, and an alternative resolution that would address the issue of
funding. The Democrats objected to that. I hope that if this issue
reemerges on the floor of the Senate that it not be a one-sided debate,
it be a full debate, so the American people and those families who have
sacrificed so much for this cause get the debate they deserve and an
opportunity to have their views heard on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, I thank you and yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the question that should be before the
Senate is: Do you support the President's escalation of the war? Don't
confuse it. Don't obfuscate it. Let's have a clean vote. The only
charade that is being played is by those who do not want to have a
clean vote on this most fundamental question.
As a Senator, John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning book
titled ``Profiles in Courage.'' His book told the stories of eight
Senators from both sides of the aisle who took a stand based on
principle and risked their careers to do so. Today, almost 50 years
later, I believe we, too, must take a stand based on principle. Today,
I believe all of us who walk on the same floor where Senator John
Kennedy once stood should heed his words when he said:
The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring . . .
will not condemn those whose devotion to principles leads
them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect
honor, and ultimately recognize right.
Today is an opportunity for every Member of the Senate to be a
profile in courage. Frankly, I am disappointed in my Senate colleagues
who voted against debating Senator Warner's resolution on Iraq. With
their vote, all they have done is delay honest debate on a failed
foreign policy that has been misguided since the beginning. I don't
believe this Senate should turn its back on the American people and
cast their lot with the President in his escalation of the war in Iraq.
I believe those who support the President's ill-
[[Page S1682]]
advised plan should be willing to stand behind that principle and go on
record, rather than hide behind parliamentary maneuvers to avoid a
vote.
Our colleagues should not be running interference for the President
on the floor of the Senate. In fact, I never supported the
administration's war--a war of choice, not of necessity; a war based on
fiction, not on fact; a war fought without enough troops from the very
beginning and designed with no plan to win the peace. I didn't vote for
the war, and I certainly would not vote for an escalation of the war.
I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002. I was in
the minority, again, when I voted last year to transition and bring our
troops home over a period of time. But the majority of the American
people sent a clear message this last November. They said the
President's plan for the Iraq war has failed. The American people
elected the Senate and this Congress to change the course in Iraq. It
is about time we started listening because it is clear the President
has not. He didn't listen to his generals. He didn't listen to the Iraq
Study Group. He didn't listen to anyone who disagreed with him. And he
certainly has not listened to the American people. That is the only
explanation for an Iraq plan that is simply more of the same.
As one of the witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
said:
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
The President's escalation plan will not work. Look at the news over
the past few days as the first wave of the new escalation troops has
arrived. At least 130 people were killed and over 300 wounded on
Sunday, in the deadliest single bomb blast since the U.S. invasion
almost 4 years ago. The U.S. military tells us that the four U.S.
helicopters that have crashed in the past 2 weeks were actually shot
down, with a fifth one down today. And Iraqi insurgents are using new
tactics to shoot down our helicopters. The Brookings Institute says the
number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has gone from
approximately 32 in November of 2003 to 185 in November of 2006, with
Iraqi civilian deaths going from 1,250 to 4,000 in that same period.
Michael O'Hanlon, an expert from Brookings, said that Iraq has become
``one of the 3 or 4 most violent places on earth.'' And this escalation
and violence has happened while U.S. troops were there and in spite of
previous U.S. troop surges. You only have to look to the past to see
that the President's escalation plan will not work. In fact, this
escalation plan is based on false assumptions and failed ideas.
To quote one of the witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee recently:
This plan is just stay-the-course plus 20,000 troops.
The escalation plan will not work because it depends on Prime
Minister Maliki to do the right thing. The Associated Press reported
today that the ``long-awaited security drive'' is underway. ``The
implementation of the prime minister's plan has already begun,'' said a
military spokesman. Yet even the architect of the escalation plan for
the administration, General Keane, told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that he doesn't know if we can count on the Prime Minister,
and he admits that Prime Minister Maliki is an unknown quantity.
I don't know and certainly don't believe that we should put the lives
of the sons and daughters of America on the line based on the hope--the
hope--that Maliki will do the right thing. The escalation plan will not
work because it depends upon Iraqis, we are told by the administration,
to take the lead. The administration keeps saying that is an Iraqi
plan, with the Iraqis taking the lead. But the truth is, everyone
doubts that the Iraqi troops will actually show up.
Many of the troops Prime Minister Maliki promised will be Kurds. Yet
an NPR story quotes General Dennis Chapman, who is commander of a team
of American military advisers in Iraqi Kurdistan, saying that there
have already been desertions from Kurdish troops and that out of the
battalion of 1,600 Kurdish soldiers going to Baghdad, he only expects a
few hundred to report for duty.
Over and over again, we heard from experts testifying before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there simply aren't enough
Iraqi troops who are loyal to Iraq as a nation and to Maliki as Prime
Minister.
A recent New York Times article painted a frightening picture of what
a joint American-Iraqi patrol looks like. The article highlights the
lack of troop strength and training of Iraqi forces and the confusion
that comes with having underprepared Iraqi troops take the lead. To
quote from the article:
. . . As the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who
were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did
not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on
their own. When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was
with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the
Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns . . .
Many of the Iraqi units who showed up late never seemed to
take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, rifling
through personal CD collections in the apartments.
In the article, a lieutenant colonel of the Third Stryker Brigade
Combat Team talked about the difficulty of conducting such operations.
He said:
This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges
and risks. It can be organized chaos.
The escalation plan will not work because similar escalation plans
have already failed in Iraq, when the enemy simply waited us out. We
tried a troop escalation and it didn't work, when we sent 12,000 troops
to Baghdad last summer and death and violence on the streets of Baghdad
actually increased. The escalation plan will not work because it has
benchmarks but no consequences. And benchmarks without consequences are
just aspirations. The plan doesn't hold the Iraqis accountable. We have
seen countless plans from this administration with benchmarks after
benchmarks that are never met.
The Iraq Study Group said, in recommendation 21, that if the Iraqi
Government doesn't make progress toward milestones, ``the United States
should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the
Iraqi government.''
Yet when I asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqis
failed to meet the much-heralded benchmarks, she didn't list any
consequences. Instead she told me:
I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A.
Plan A hasn't been working. I will say it again: Benchmarks without
consequences are just aspirations. And they are aspirations that have
failed time and time again. The escalation plan, as a consequence, will
break the back of our National Guard and Reserves.
Let me be clear: The President's escalation plan cannot be
implemented without using the National Guard and Reserves far beyond
what they already have been used. There simply aren't enough troops. We
have already seen the tours of National Guard troops extended. A week
ago, I was informed that the New Jersey Army National Guard troops
currently stationed in Iraq will see their tours extended by 125 days
as result of President Bush's policy. I fully expect to see more
extended deployments in the future.
The escalation is going to hurt our security at home by keeping those
National Guard and Reserve troops away in Iraq. Those who return home
leave their equipment in Iraq, resulting in severe equipment shortages
for our National Guard at home. In fact, Larry Korb, an expert from the
Center for American Progress, says the units returned home so depleted
that the Marines have been referring to this phase as ``the
postdeployment death spiral.'' That is why it is time to transition our
mission and set a timeframe to get our troops out of Iraq.
Staying in Iraq isn't in the national interest or national security
interest of the United States. Our troops are caught in the middle of a
civil war they can't solve. Increasing troops will only put more of
them directly into a sectarian Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there or
adding more troops is trying to solve a political problem with a
military solution.
In one briefing, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
said: We need to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they
hate their neighbors.
That is a powerful truism. The problem is, you don't get Iraqis to
love
[[Page S1683]]
their children more than they hate their neighbors through military
might. That is about reconciliation. It is about confidence building.
It is about power sharing. It is about revenue sharing. It is about a
host of other things, things that cannot be accomplished through
military might.
Staying would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country
that has turned out to be the biggest winner in our war with Iraq. Dr.
Paul Pillar pointed out recently:
Among the neighbors, the largest winner has been Iran. The
war has not only toppled the dictator who initiated an
earlier war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians; it
has also crippled what had been the larger regional
counterweight to Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the all-
consuming preoccupation that the Iraq war has become for the
United States, along with the growing unpopularity of the war
among Americans, probably has made Iranian leaders less
fearful than they otherwise might have been about forceful
U.S. action, including military action, against Iran.
Our presence in Iraq only continues to serve as a battle cry for
terrorists around the world. According to last year's National
Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism, the war in Iraq has
become ``a cause celebre'' for jihadists'' and is ``shaping a new
generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.''
Let me be clear, because of how this war was entered into--weapons of
mass destruction that never existed--because of how it was executed,
there are now no good options left for us in Iraq. But I do believe the
first steps toward stabilizing Iraq is to set a date certain for troops
to leave. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave
that Iraqis will have to take responsibility for security in their own
country and work out their political power struggles. Right now as much
as they dislike us being there, we still bear the true burden for
trying to stop the violence. The Iraqis have little incentive to work
out their turf wars over political power as long as we are in the
country. Iraq's political leadership will never make the hard choices,
compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of
national unity, as long as they believe we will stay in an endless
occupation, in which the lives of Americans will be shed and national
treasure will be expended.
It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that
Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos
inside Iraq. Right now the violence has not reached the tipping point
to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their
national security interest to have the conflict spill across their
borders and to have Iraq disintegrate. But by setting a date certain to
leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the
violence. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave
that the international community will take a responsible role in Iraq.
Right now the international community sees this as America's war. Once
we make clear we will not be there permanently, they, too, will have an
incentive to get involved and help preserve stability in a region much
closer to Europe than the United States.
So by setting a date certain for our troops to leave, we actually
motivate the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, and the international community
to take the necessary steps to stabilize Iraq.
But setting a date certain and getting our troops out of Iraq in a
safe and orderly way is not enough. I believe we must do more.
What we need now is a surge in diplomacy. That will involve much more
than a few trips to the region. We must actively engage with Iraq's
neighbors in the international community.
But I cannot close without discussing the cost of this war in Iraq.
Some say they want to have a talk about, or votes, not about the
escalation but about whether there are resources for the troops. I
think we should have a real, honest debate that will come in the budget
process about what this war is costing. Let's have a real, honest
debate about the administration's lack of honesty in telling the
American people what this war costs.
Our expenditures in Iraq will saddle our Nation's finances and our
children's future. We spend over $8 billion a month in Iraq; we spend
$2 billion a week in Iraq; we spend $280 million every day in Iraq; we
spend $11.5 million an hour in Iraq.
The Congress has already appropriated $379 billion for Iraq, and
President Bush is now asking for an additional $179 billion. Yet the
Secretary of Defense announced to the Budget Committee, on which I
serve, that he is not going to come before the committee to justify
this spending. To me, that is simply outrageous.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new
report saying the Bush administration cannot account for critical
defense materiel, including over $36 million in weapons. Hearings in
the other body revealed that the administration cannot account for over
$8 billion that was sent in cash bundles of $400,000 into a war region,
without any controls. They cannot account for over $8 billion. Now the
administration wants the Congress to hand over another blank check.
Let me put our Iraq spending into perspective.
For what we spend in less than 2 months for operations in Iraq, we
could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every
school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to
meet the goals of the law.
For what we spend in less than 2 months in Iraq, we could make up the
shortfall in the SCHIP program to help cover children who would
otherwise be uninsured.
For what we spend in 4 days in Iraq, we could substantially improve
security at our Nation's ports with an additional billion dollars,
including increased scanning of cargo containers.
For what we spend in 2\1/2\ months in Iraq, we could pay the $21
billion cost of implementing all of the remaining 9/11 Commission
recommendations to secure our homeland.
Yet we need to look beyond the economic costs of this war at its true
cost: 3,099 American lives, to date. That is invaluable. It is
priceless. More will die in the days ahead if we do not change the
course in Iraq. We now have more than 23,000 sons and daughters of
America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever.
We have a real obligation to all of those who are wounded and their
families, and to the survivors of those who suffered the ultimate
sacrifice. Yet we look at a budget that does not meet that
responsibility.
Today, we should be debating the President's escalation plan,
particularly since we recently learned from the CBO that the escalation
proposed by President Bush would easily cost more than triple what the
administration has told us.
Let me be clear for those who may have not heard about the
Congressional Budget Office report. That report says the President's
escalation plan of 21,000 troops actually only includes combat troops
and not all of the other troops necessary for force operations. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates this could mean an additional
28,000 support personnel, and that the cost could go as high as $29
billion. Now, to deviate from that would be to deviate from every
standard operating procedure the Defense Department has had to support
the men and women in the theater; it would be to deviate from every
historical perspective. Yet that is not what they included in the
budget sent to the Congress.
I am also deeply concerned that the administration has left open the
possibility of yet another emergency supplemental to fund this war in
fiscal year 2008. All that means is we are putting it upon the next
generation of Americans, which is how most of the costs of this war
have taken place--we are putting it on the backs of the next generation
of Americans and not even being responsible for paying for it. We do
all of this while we have the greatest tax cuts for some of the
wealthiest people in the Nation, and at a time when the Nation is at
war. That has never been seen before in the Nation's history.
The administration has never been honest with the American people
about the cost of the war. It is time for that to end. This Senate must
demand an honest accounting before we hand this administration any more
money or, even more importantly, any more troops.
In the end, it is in honor of those men and women who have given the
greatest sacrifice in the line of duty that we must change the course
in Iraq. It is in honor of their courage we
[[Page S1684]]
must ensure their comrades are not sent off to carry out a failing plan
designed by their civilian leadership.
I ask each of my colleagues: Are you willing to look a young soldier
in the eye and tell them you are sending them off to Iraq based upon a
failed policy and a recycled plan and based upon the hope that Prime
Minister Maliki will get it right? How many more American lives will we
lose before we realize this plan will not work? And if it were your son
or daughter, how long would you be willing to wait? How long would you
be willing to listen to the counsel of patience, of delay, of only one
more chance, of stay the course?
I know I certainly am not willing to wait any longer.
I believe there is a difference between deference to the Commander in
Chief and blind loyalty. I cannot support blind loyalty that sends more
of America's sons and daughters to die for a war of choice, to die for
a continuing failed policy. In my mind, that is irresponsible and I
believe the very essence of the constitutional framework this country
was founded on requires us to act. That is what the majority leader
wants to do. It is time for some real profiles in courage. I urge my
colleagues to allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the President's
escalation, and to support the Warner-Levin resolution. I hope, beyond
that, at a later time, to support future binding actions to stop the
failed policy in Iraq.
I started today by reminding all of us of the words of John F.
Kennedy and the profiles in courage he detailed in this Senate. He
said:
In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of
courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he
follows his conscience--the loss of his friends, his fortune,
his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--each man
[and I add each woman] must decide for himself the course he
will follow. The stories of past courage can define that
ingredient--they can teach, they can offer hope, they can
provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself.
For this, each man must look into his own soul.
I ask each Member of the Senate to look into your own soul and your
own conscience, allow us to move to the Warner-Levin resolution, allow
us to have a vote against the escalation of troops in Iraq. The Nation
is waiting and they are watching, and there is accountability to be
had.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________