[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2239-S2242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to 
express my concerns about the growing politicalization of the debate 
over the war in Iraq. The reason I am concerned is because I think the 
revolving door of resolutions we have seen emanating from Washington, 
DC, has caused confusion. Now, I would be happy if the confusion were 
limited to our enemies. But, unfortunately, I think that confusion 
extends to our allies and perhaps even to the troops who are now 
serving in that war-torn country.
  I do not believe that confusion is called for; rather, clarity is 
what we ought to be producing here. But this revolving door of 
resolutions being produced by those primarily on the other side of the 
aisle has seemed to contribute to our inability to speak with one voice 
on the one subject where we ought to be speaking with one voice; that 
is, our Nation's security. We ought not to be playing politics of any 
kind when talking about the lives of our troops or the resolutions 
which might have the unintended consequence of undermining their morale 
or causing our friends and allies confusion as to whether we are 
willing to stay the course in this battle of wills. This is a battle of 
wills.

  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel so strongly--as 
some of them clearly do--about the conflict in Iraq, then I believe 
they have an obligation to cut off funding. We have at least two 
Senators who have offered those kinds of resolutions--Senator Dodd and 
Senator Feingold. I would put it this way: If my colleagues really 
believe all is lost in Iraq and there is no possible way to succeed, 
then I think Senators could justly reach the conclusion that the only 
moral decision would be to deny funding to send them into harm's way. 
But instead what we see is an uncontrollable desire to tinker with our 
military operations, deciding in some cases what individual Members of 
Congress think should be done on the ground and then on the other hand 
what kind of decisions ought to be left to commanders. I suggest to my 
colleagues that strategy will lead us nowhere. Congress should not be 
involved in micromanaging the day-to-day tactics of military commanders 
on the ground. Our Constitution provides for a single Commander in 
Chief, not 535 chieftains who can make tactical decisions about 
something as sensitive and challenging as war operations in Iraq.
  We have heard there are between 5,000 and 6,000 members of al-Qaida 
in Iraq, primarily in Anbar Province. It makes no sense to me for us to 
pull out our troops until we have defeated those terrorists. Certainly, 
I disagree with those who say we ought to pull out our troops before we 
are able to stabilize Iraq in a way that it can sustain itself, defend 
itself, and govern itself because I think we know what will happen if 
Iraq becomes just another failed state in the Middle East, particularly 
with those 5,000 to 6,000 members of al-Qaida present in Iraq: It will 
become another Afghanistan.
  As we all know, when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, Afghanistan 
became a failed state, giving rise to the Taliban and al-Qaida in Iraq, 
the likes of Osama bin Laden among them. Of course, it was because they 
had a safe haven in Afghanistan that they could then plot and plan and 
train and recruit and finance their terrorist operations, and it allows 
them the safety and convenience to plan an attack against the United 
States, which they did on September 11, 2001.
  Of course, we know, because they have told us, that one of al-Qaida's 
major goals in Iraq is to increase sectarian violence between the 
Sunnis and the Shias. Al-Qaida cannot defeat us on the battlefield; we 
know that and they know that. The only way they can prevail is if we 
give up, if we pull our combat troops out of Iraq until al-Qaida is no 
longer a threat there. We know that Sunni extremists, including al-
Qaida, want to create a civil war that will tear the country apart. The 
only way al-Qaida will be successful in doing that is if we allow them 
to do so.
  We need to let our military do the job in Iraq. We can't pretend to 
be able to make the best decisions from here in Washington, DC, about 
what kinds of tactics are likely or reasonably calculated to be 
successful several thousand miles away.
  As recently as Sunday, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee appeared on a weekend talk show. I would like to read a 
little bit of the questions and answers which were produced from that 
interaction because I think it demonstrates exactly the kind of 
confusion I am talking about that I think ill-serves our troops and 
ill-serves our Nation during a time of war.
  The question was this:

       Will you set a goal for withdrawing combat troops?

  Senator Levin says:

       We would. We would follow basically the pattern that was 
     set or proposed by the Iraq Study Group, which was to set a 
     goal for the removal of combat troops, as you put it 
     correctly, by March of next year.

  Mr. Russert:

       So how many troops would that be by March of next year 
     would be taken out?

  Mr. Levin said:

       We don't have a specific number, nor did the study group, 
     but it would be most. There would be a limited number of 
     troops that would be left.

  Mr. Russert said:

       So out of 150,000, we would take out how many?

  Mr. Levin:

       I would say most.

  Mr. Russert:

       What would be left behind?

  Senator Levin said:

       It would be a limited number, which would--

  Mr. Russert said:

       Ten thousand, 20,000?

  Senator Levin said:

       I don't want to put a specific number on it because that 
     really should be left to the commanders to decide how many 
     would be needed to carry out these limited functions.

  I think this brief Q-and-A demonstrates the kind of confusion that 
occurs when Members of the Senate, notwithstanding their best 
intentions, tinker with tactical decisions made with fighting a war 
several thousand miles away.
  We know the power Congress has under our Constitution, and if, in 
fact, there are those, as I said earlier, who believe that all is lost, 
then I believe the only appropriate action to take would be for those 
people who hold that belief to try to bring a resolution to the floor 
that would cut off funding for this ill-fated, in their view, conflict. 
But my colleagues can't have it both ways. On the one hand, they can't 
say we should leave it to our commanders in the field to determine the 
number of troops, and yet when General Petraeus says he needs 21,500 
troops to fight the terrorists in Iraq, these same individuals would 
tell him: No, you can't have them.
  This is a question and answer from the nomination hearing for GEN 
David Petraeus.
  Senator McCain asked him:

       Suppose we send you over there to your new job, General, 
     only we tell you that you can't have any additional troops. 
     Can you get your job done?

  General Petraeus said:

       No, sir.

  The kind of confusion I think we have seen emanating from Capitol 
Hill is directly related to the revolving door of resolutions we have 
seen since the beginning of the year.
  First, there was the Biden resolution. Senator Reid, the 
distinguished majority leader, said, ``Tomorrow the Senate will proceed 
to S. Con. Res. 2, the bipartisan Iraq resolution.'' He said that

[[Page S2240]]

on January 31, 2007. Then Senator Reid said later the same day, ``There 
will be a bipartisan group of Senators who believe the more appropriate 
matter is the Warner resolution.''
  So first we had the Biden resolution, then we had the Warner 
resolution, and then there was the Levin resolution. Senator Reid said, 
on January 31, 2007, ``In my caucus there was near unanimity for the 
Levin resolution.'' Then--I mentioned this a moment ago--there are 
those such as Senator Feingold who said: ``I oppose the weak Warner-
Levin resolution as currently written because it misunderstands the 
situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests.'' 
He said that on February 1.
  Then there was the Reid-Pelosi resolution. This was the one on which 
the majority leader said, ``I think it is so much more direct. We 
support the troops. We are opposed to the surge. Perfect.'' He was 
asked this question: I was asking you why you prefer the House 
resolution to move forward. This is the press asking the majority 
leader. He said, ``I think it is so much more direct. We support the 
troops. We are opposed to the surge. Perfect.'' That is the majority 
leader on February 13, 2007.
  Then one of the Democratic candidates for President, Senator Chris 
Dodd of Connecticut, made this observation, and I happen to think he is 
exactly right. He said: ``We have a sense of Senate resolution on 
asparagus. They don't mean a whole lot.''
  Well, I have heard a lot from my constituents back in Texas who just 
wonder what in the world are we doing here in Washington debating a 
series of nonbinding resolutions. Senator Dodd has it exactly right. To 
show the dignity of these nonbinding resolutions, we even have a Senate 
resolution on asparagus. It is demeaning and inappropriate, in my view, 
for us to be talking in those kinds of terms when it comes to something 
as serious as Iraq.
  Then there was the Murtha plan, named after Representative Jack 
Murtha, the Democrat from Pennsylvania. This is Representative Murtha's 
plan. He said:

       They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do 
     the deployment.

  This is his plan.

       They won't have the equipment, they won't have the 
     training, and they won't be able to do the work. There is no 
     question in my mind. We have analyzed this and we have come 
     to the conclusion that it can't be done.

  So this is what the Democrats in the House have had to offer in terms 
of resolutions: Let's not vote to cut off funding, but let's tie our 
troops in so much redtape and deny them the ability to be successful 
with the new plan the President has proposed in Iraq. That was on 
February 15.
  Representative Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, I think tagged 
it right, tagged Representative Murtha's plan correctly. He said on 
Murtha's clumsy strategy:

       Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off 
     funding or even conditioning these funds.

  That was what Representative Jim Cooper said on February 23 in the 
Washington Post.
  Congressman Chet Edwards from my State of Texas, another Democrat, 
said:

       If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate 
     troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could 
     put some missions and some troops at risk.

  He said that on February 23 in the Washington Post.
  The latest resolution, the Biden-Levin proposal, was described by 
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee in the Senate, another Democrat candidate for President: 
``And that resolution can be simply entitled: Revoke the 
authorization.''
  What he is talking about is revoking the authorization of the use of 
military force that Congress passed in 2001. He is talking about, in 
2007, going back to 2001 and revoking the original authorization for 
use of military force that has resulted in 130,000 American troops 
currently in Iraq.
  Senator Biden said this:

       The next best step is to revoke the authorization the 
     United States Congress gave to the President to go to war in 
     the first place.

  He said that in Des Moines, IA, on February 17.
  Senator Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a 
Democrat of Michigan, said:

       We should limit the mission. One thought is that we should 
     limit the mission to a support mission. In other words, an 
     anti-terrorist mission to go after al-Qaida in Iraq, to 
     support and train the Iraqi Army, to protect our own 
     diplomatic personnel and other personnel in Iraq.

  So Senator Levin's proposal would be to limit the mission, to put 
conditions on our troops and on the rules of engagement that would deny 
them the ability to be successful, if they were otherwise able to be 
successful. He said that on September 19.
  Representative Chet Edwards, again of Texas, a Democrat, I think 
nailed it. He said:

       I think Congress begins to skate on thin ice when we start 
     to micromanage troop deployment and rotation.

  He said that on February 23, 2007.
  Then there are other resolutions by other candidates for President.
  The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, on his resolution said:

       The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-
     ended commitment must come to a close. The need to bring this 
     war to an end is here, and that is why today I am introducing 
     the Iraq War Deescalation Act of 2007.

  That was on January 30, 2007. He wanted to cap troops who could be 
deployed into Iraq and opposed the President's plan.
  Then Senator Clinton, on her proposal, said:

       I don't want to defund our troops, I am against that, but I 
     want to defund Iraqi troops.

  Just remember, a moment ago Senator Levin in his resolution said he 
wanted to train and equip the Iraqis, and now Senator Clinton says she 
wants to defund the Iraqi troops. She said:

       I want to defund the private security going for the Iraqi 
     government if they don't meet these certain requirements.

  She said that on FOX News, a special report with Brit Hume on January 
18, 2007.
  I could go on and on. I know the Senator from Florida is here and 
wants to speak on the same topic. But the plethora of resolutions that 
seem to be emanating from the other side of the aisle can't do anything 
but engender confusion about our aims in Iraq and in the Middle East, 
not only for our troops who put themselves in harm's way but for Iraqis 
who have allied themselves with us, who have helped us. I would think 
that out of the new majority, at least there ought to be a consensus on 
what it is we ought to be doing there, that we ought not to be leaving 
our troops with any doubt in their minds about our commitment to 
support them. We ought not to be leaving any of our friends in Iraq, 
who have allied themselves with us by helping us, to doubt, wondering 
whether we would pull our troops out precipitously and leave them 
exposed to a huge humanitarian crisis and a huge ethnic cleansing by 
the violence that would ensue.

  My hope is we will give this new plan a chance. As the Iraq Study 
Group said, they believe they could support a surge, under appropriate 
conditions, on page 73 in that report--a bipartisan report of a group 
who have been given great weight in Congress. They have studied the 
issue and made recommendations to the President. The President has 
consulted broadly with a large number of people, military experts, 
people on both sides of the aisle, and has come up with not only a new 
commander but a new plan, and we have a new Secretary of Defense.
  I fail to understand, and I cannot understand, why it is there are so 
many people who are determined to see that plan be unsuccessful by not 
providing the troops, by not providing the funding, and by tying our 
troops' hands with redtape, in terms of the rules of engagement and the 
conditions under which they fight.
  Mr. President, I ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
work with us and come up with some plan that can have the support of 
the Members of Congress. As I said, it used to be that differences 
between political parties stopped at the water's edge, particularly on 
a matter so important as our national security. A confusing message is 
sent by these revolving-door resolutions that are mutually 
contradictory and inconsistent and do nothing to help us win the war 
there, to stabilize Iraq, and to bring our troops home as fast as we 
can.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S2241]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I follow the remarks of my colleague 
from Texas regarding the situation in Iraq and our own situation as it 
relates to that effort. I wish to pick up on what he said, which is 
that for so long in the history of our Nation, politics ended at the 
water's edge. I wish we could go back to the days when we would look at 
our troops fighting overseas in an effort as significant as this is--
the current war against radical Islam--as something that could unite us 
all as Americans, where we might shed party labels and also shed 
personal political ambition.
  I cannot help but notice, as the Senator from Texas was recounting 
all of the various plans that have been proposed from the other side, 
that most of them seemed to come from those labeled as a Presidential 
candidate. It seems everybody tried to have a different nuance on yet 
another micromanaging strategy to satisfy their personal political 
goals.
  So how do we serve our national interests best? We should not be 
fighting a war from the political landscape of Washington. That is a 
recipe for defeat. We should follow the strategy of General Petraeus, 
who is in the field, who is the allied commander of our troops in Iraq, 
who does believe the current strategy we are following is one that has 
a reasonable chance for success. There is no guarantee, but it has a 
reasonable chance for success. That strategy has now been unfolding for 
several days. There has been a change on the ground. It is a strategy I 
know many forget, but it has multiprongs to it. It is not just the 
military reinforcements over Baghdad and the Iraqi forces taking the 
lead in Baghdad with our support, but it also has a political and an 
economic component. The political component--and I had to look for it 
because it was not on the front page--was that the Iraqi Cabinet 
approved yesterday an oil-sharing agreement for their country, which 
now goes to the Iraqi Parliament for their approval. That is one of the 
key cornerstones of beginning to achieve a political settlement--
reaching an accord on the sharing of oil revenue--so there can be a 
sense of nationhood, so there can be a coming together of the different 
factions within Iraq. It is a very important component of a political 
settlement. I know other settlements are being added to the military 
and, at the same time, we understand some of those folks we would not 
want to be partners with. There are elements from the old Baathist Army 
that can be incorporated. Most of these are Sunnis, which is leading to 
a greater sense of confidence in the Sunni population. We see shifting 
and changing on the ground. We see that al-Sadr is taking a slightly 
different approach. He is anti-American, but at the same time the 
streets of Baghdad seem to be a tad quieter.
  We have a long way to go, but we are making some progress. I believe 
it is important we note even the small measures of progress. I know our 
troops on the ground, our brave men and women fighting in Iraq, do 
notice these changes and understand they make a difference in the lives 
of the Iraqis. When our men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation 
are deployed and they go into battle, they should never for a moment 
have any hesitation in their minds or wonder whether they will have the 
tools they need to successfully perform their mission while defending 
themselves and the civilians they are working to protect.

  The concept of opposing the war but supporting our troops seems 
untenable, when part of that same plan is one that will not allow 
reinforcements into battle, will not allow the equipment necessary, and 
has been described as a slow-bleed strategy. That kind of a strategy 
accomplishes nothing toward victory, and it does damage our troops, 
their morale and their mission.
  Our President is the Commander in Chief. He is the leader of our 
Nation's military. Congress voted to authorize the President under the 
present circumstances. Resolutions in Washington of all flavors and 
varieties might make for good politics, but they do not make good sense 
as a military policy and a strategy for success. We only have one 
Commander in Chief at a time. Our Nation only has one Commander in 
Chief, and to micromanage our troops in the field is not what was ever 
intended by the constitutional responsibilities that divide the powers 
within our Government.
  My colleague from Texas talked about Chairman Levin's comments. He 
made other comments in that interview. This was Sunday on ``Meet The 
Press.'' He said:

       We are trying to tie the hands of the President and his 
     policy.

  I will repeat that:

       We are trying to tie the hands of the President and his 
     policy. We are trying to change the policy. And if someone 
     wants to call that ``tying the hands'' instead of changing 
     policy, yes, the President needs a check and balance.

  I don't think that is a check and balance that was envisioned by our 
Constitution and Founding Fathers--tying the hands of the Commander in 
Chief in a time of war, while our troops are deployed and are shedding 
blood in battle. That is not what our Constitution ever intended.
  Is it appropriate for Congress to tie the hands of the Commander in 
Chief in a time of war? I would say no. I believe most Floridians would 
agree with that--that this is not the time to tie the hands of the 
Commander in Chief. Should we keep the Commander in Chief from 
reinforcing our troops? In the judgment of military leaders, such as 
General Petraeus, the reinforcements are necessary, needed, and they 
are part of what will give us an opportunity for success. Should we 
keep the Commander in Chief from reinforcing these troops? The answer 
to that is also no. Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, 
with regard to the Armed Forces, Congress is given the power of the 
purse and only the power of the purse. We have the responsibility to 
fully provide funding for our military forces, especially when they are 
at war and in harm's way, defending our Nation.
  So what is the President's role in all of this? Article II, section 
2, of the Constitution says the President is the ``Commander in Chief 
of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' He has command over the 
Armed Forces. He has the power and authority to deploy troops. He has 
the power and authority to direct military campaigns during wartime. 
For the Congress to tie the President's hands is not the right thing to 
do. It is outside the scope of what the Congress is supposed to do. 
This is not the checks and balances intended by our Founding Fathers. 
In a time of war, the Congress should only support our President, try 
to unite behind our troops and unite behind our effort. Our job is not 
to micromanage the handling of a war.
  Another theory that has been advanced is we should continue to fight 
al-Qaida but not be involved in a civil war. I have not understood how 
we can have a strategy in a place that is as complex as Iraq is today 
to fight against one set of insurgents and not against another. We do 
know that a chaotic Iraq would be nothing but a haven for al-Qaida. We 
know that al-Qaida is resurging and reorganizing; our recent 
intelligence reports indicate that. Nothing would be more appealing or 
pleasing to them than to, first of all, validate their strategy, which 
is to create such an uproar in American politics through the deaths of 
our men and women in uniform and to end the resolve of our Nation so we 
would not continue to be steadfast in our resolve. This has been their 
avowed and professed strategy.
  I believe for us to do anything other than continue forward in this 
hopeful effort for a victorious outcome would be nothing short of 
giving in to al-Qaida's strategy--their professed strategy. There is 
only one option, which has to do with the funding of our troops. I go 
back to the Gregg resolution. Senator Gregg had a resolution, and it 
was simply that we would support our troops. Our troops are in battle; 
we are in a time of war. This Congress sent them into battle by 
allowing the President to have the authority to do so. So at this time, 
the only resolution that I think is appropriate is the Gregg 
resolution, which has been discussed but not debated on the floor of 
the Senate. I look forward to an opportunity to have a full debate on 
that resolution. Hopefully, the leadership will allow it to come to the 
floor for a full debate and a vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S2242]]

next 30 minutes will be under the control of the majority leader or his 
designee.
  The Democratic whip is recognized.

                          ____________________