[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1733-S1734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will speak on the President's 
decision to escalate by 21,000 troops into Iraq and whether it will be 
effective. If we determine the likelihood of success is not going to be 
effective, and we put 21,000 more troops in harm's way in the middle of 
sectarian violence, then it doesn't seem to me to be a wise policy if 
it is not going to be effective. It is naturally legitimate to debate 
whether it is effective.
  The President's plan specifically is among the 21,500 to take about 
17,500 to put into Baghdad and another 4,000 into the western part of 
Iraq, Anbar Province. I happen to agree with the latter part because I 
was convinced by the Marine generals that an increase of our forces 
would help them augment the success they have had, since all of that 
area is almost entirely Sunni and the problem there has been al-Qaida 
and

[[Page S1734]]

the al-Qaida insurgents. I agree with that part of the President's 
strategy.
  However, most of the troops--some 17,500--are scheduled to go into 
Baghdad, in the midst of the sectarian violence, and that is where I 
disagree. I point out to the Senate, the President's strategy is 
predicated on the fact of the Iraqi Army being reliable. Now, will it 
be reliable? If the President's strategy is predicated on that fact of 
the Iraqi Army being reliable, one would think the administration has 
come to the conclusion the Iraqi Army will be reliable. The fact is, 
they haven't.
  In testimony after testimony by administration witnesses, not one 
witness in any of the hearings that have been held in the committees 
upon which I have the privilege of serving--the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate 
Intelligence Committee--not one witness has been able to state that the 
Iraqi Army will be reliable. To the contrary.
  The Secretary of Defense, the new commander of American forces in 
Iraq, the new combatant commander for the United States Central 
Command--every one of them has been unable to answer in the affirmative 
that the Iraqi forces are going to be reliable. As a matter of fact, a 
few days ago the Secretary of Defense said to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services that we will have to wait and see if they are reliable. 
The very underpinning of the President's strategy for success is an 
unknown.
  I bring to the Senate's attention what has been released 2 days ago. 
This is the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate. 
This is the best estimate by our intelligence community. Listen to what 
they have to say on exactly this subject. I am reading from the 
unclassified version.

       Despite real improvements, the Iraqi security forces, 
     particularly the Iraqi police, will be hard pressed in the 
     next 12 to 18 months to execute significantly increased 
     security responsibilities, and particularly to operate 
     independently against the Shia militias with success. 
     Sectarian divisions erode the dependability of many units. 
     Many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls and a 
     number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of areas 
     where they have been recruited.

  That is word for word the National Intelligence Estimate, 
unclassified version, that says the same thing as Secretary Gates, 
General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon, and the soon-to-be new Army Chief of 
Staff, General Casey, who served for the last 2\1/2\ years in Iraq.
  I come back to the question I continue to ask. If the President's 
plan for success by an escalation of troops in Baghdad is predicated on 
the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi security forces being reliable--since they 
are to take the burden of the clearing and then the holding of an 
area--and if no one can state they are reliable, why are we pursuing 
this plan of an escalation of forces into Baghdad?
  We hope they are going to be reliable. We hope for the success of our 
forces. The stakes are high, unquestionably, of stabilizing Iraq. But 
is this the wisest course, putting 17,500 more American forces in 
Baghdad at high risk? In this Senator's opinion, the very underpinning, 
the foundation of the President's plan, is undermined by virtue of the 
fact that none of the administration principals can answer the question 
that they are reliable. They can't answer that question. Therefore, I 
do not think it is in the best interests of our country or of our 
troops to escalate these forces into Baghdad.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________