Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 41 (Friday, March 9, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 41 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2381-H2390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MANNER OF CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS IN THE 110TH CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, we have had I think a very eventful
week here this week and accomplished a significant amount and had some
intense debates here on the floor of this Congress. In my time here and
in anybody's memory here, I don't think anyone remembers a time that
there have been three motions to recommit that have actually succeeded
and attached that new policy on to the bill that was prepared for final
passage here on the floor. That makes it an eventful week.
Madam Speaker, I reflect here that at the beginning of the 110th
Congress there were a lot of objections to a scoreboard vote board that
was kept open when Republicans were in charge for the sake of being
able to allow people to change their votes until everyone was
satisfied. There were strong and loud and vociferous complaints to
keeping that board open when it was the Republicans in charge.
I am not here to make a loud, vociferous objection to the Democrats
keeping the board open, but I am here to point out that the shoe is on
the other foot today, and today this motion to recommit went up on the
board, and it had 147 Democrats that voted ``no'' on the motion to
recommit.
The motion to recommit, what it did was said that no individual who
has been issued a transportation worker identification card may board a
maritime vessel if the individual has been convicted of or found not
guilty by reason of insanity in a civilian or military jurisdiction of
any of the following felonies. In other words, nobody is going to be
boarding a maritime vessel if they are guilty of these crimes:
espionage or conspiracy, sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition,
treason,

[[Page H2382]]

and a number of other crimes along through the list one can imagine,
distribution, manufacture, purchase receipt, dealing with explosives.
In other words, terrorists, people who have been identified as
terrorists, convicted as terrorists. The motion to recommit said no one
will be boarding a maritime vessel that has those things on their
record.
Upon the first vote that was up there, the peak came out to be 247
Democrats voting against a motion that would block those who have
committed those violent crimes, those crimes against this country. Then
the board was left open, and as minutes went by, and I didn't watch my
watch, but I am going to suspect it was 20 to 25 minutes, I watched
Democrats vote their convictions and then began to adjust to their
convictions, and 111 Members changed their vote here, getting down from
147 that voted ``no'' to 56 that voted ``no,'' and final passage became
359 to 56 on the passage of the motion to recommit.
So I point out that sometimes that criticism that comes when you are
in the minority doesn't seem like when the shoe is on the other foot
that the rules you claim should apply are the ones that actually apply
when you find yourself in a position of making the rules.
I would point also out that the circumstance before the Rules
Committee, since that word came out of my mouth, Madam Speaker, and in
the Rules Committee, we brought rules before, there were rules that
were brought before this full Congress and approved for the 110th
Congress. This was going to be a 110th Congress with a new majority and
a new Speaker and there was going to be sunshine on everything we did.
There was going to be a level of integrity in the process that was
here. There were great objections to the process we had, and there was
going to be a change, a new era in government, which means more
openness, more honesty, more reporting.
But written into the rule was an exemption for the Rules Committee,
so they are not required to report the recorded votes within the Rules
Committee.
Now, how is it that here we are a more open government, but we are
writing in provisions that allow for more secrecy? And that is the
fact, Madam Speaker. That is the fact that came before this Congress.
That is the fact that many of us voted against on the rules package.
That is the amendment that I brought before the Rules Committee a
couple of days ago.
What is ironic about that is that I have to go and appeal to the same
people that want the secrecy and ask them if they will let me have a
vote here on the floor about taking away the secrecy they have assigned
themselves. Of course, the people that sat in judgment, that assigned
themselves the secrecy, said, no, we won't allow a debate on it; we
won't allow a vote on it. We are going to maintain the secrecy. And, by
the way, it was offensive to them to have anyone raise the issue that
they should be required to report the votes of the Rules Committee when
there is a recorded vote.
So that amendment was denied. The American people were denied a
debate. They were denied a vote and denied an opportunity to even judge
whether this is a more open process or whether it has become a more
closed process.
But I think these two instances that I brought up just this week,
Madam Speaker, illustrate that the process is not more open, it is not
cleaner, it is not with more sunshine on it, and it is not more
reflective of the representation here in this Congress. There are other
instances as well as I could go on, but I think that suffices to make
my point.
Madam Speaker, I came here to talk about another issue that has been
rolled out in the media yesterday and today, this issue of the
supplemental appropriations bill that the President has asked for in
order to fund our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The President has made a request so that we can provide adequate
materials, supplies, training and equipment and munitions to our
military that are on the front lines who put their lives on the line
for our freedom. I am pledged to uphold that support for them. But what
I see come out, at least with the report of the news with regard to the
supplemental, has so many strings attached. This is an unprecedented
attempt on the part of Congress to micromanage a shooting war.
Our Founding Fathers understood this, and they declared in the
Constitution that the President is the Commander in Chief. They didn't
write in the Constitution that the President will be presiding over a
committee of 435 Members of Congress on the House side and 100 Senators
on the Senate side and they shall be a committee that will micromanage
the nuances of a war.
The Founding Fathers knew that you could not fight a war on
consensus, that you can't fight it on majority vote. You have to have a
Commander in Chief who is in charge. That was a clear understanding of
history and human nature. It was reflected by our Founding Fathers into
our Constitution, Madam Speaker. And yet to this day, I don't know how
many Members of this Congress even understand how the Constitution
controls the things that they do, even though every single one of us
takes an oath to this Constitution at the beginning of every Congress.
Every 2 years we stand up and we say: ``I pledge to uphold the
Constitution of the United States.'' I do so here on the floor. I make
that oath on a Bible.

{time} 1500

Most don't because it is hard to remember to bring the Bible with you
on that day, but most do go over and have their picture taken
ceremonially with their hand on the Bible. Well, I do both if I've got
the time, but the one I don't miss is I bring the Bible to the floor
and I take that oath, ``so help me God,'' to uphold this Constitution.
And if it is inconvenient to have a provision in the Constitution, we
have to live with it until it becomes so inconvenient that we are
willing to amend it. But we do not have the authority here in this
Congress to amend the Constitution, neither does the Supreme Court and
neither does the commander in chief. The people of America have to
ratify an amendment to the Constitution. And that is how the Founders
saw it because they understood they were not creating a democracy,
Madam Speaker. And if anybody is teaching out there in the classes of
civics and government that go on all over America in nearly every
school in America that we are blessed to be born and live in a
democracy, I have to say, Madam Speaker, that is an erroneous lesson to
be teaching our young people and to be perpetuating through the adults.
And, in fact, a lot of the people in this Congress still believe this
is a democracy.
Well, when Benjamin Franklin stepped out of the Constitutional
Congress he was asked by a lady on the streets, ``What have you
produced?'' And his answer was, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep
it.'' And that is what we have. We have a constitutional republic
because our Founders understood that if you went to the pure democracy
form, and they studied the democracies of the city-states in Greece; in
fact, I have been there to see the displays at the National Archives of
the pottery that the Greeks had and their method of voting demagogues
out of the city and banishing them for 7 years. And some of that system
is still within our Greek system on our universities today.
The Greeks identified a demagogue as someone who was so skilled with
their rhetoric, so moving and passionate in their delivery of their
oratorical speeches, that they could move the masses by emotion rather
than rationale. So they banished the demagogues from their city-states
because it sent them down the path of emotion rather than deductive
reasoning.
So the Founders understood that we didn't need to have the masses
moving by emotion; they understood that the definition of a democracy
was two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what's for dinner. Majority
rules; guess who's for dinner?
They wrote rights into our Constitution and into the Bill of Rights
because they understood human nature, and they knew there had to be
protections in place higher than a majority vote, higher than being in
the majority. There had to be guaranteed constitutional rights for all
citizens in this country on equal standing, drafted in, plugged into
the Bill of Rights and ratified by the several States, and now

[[Page H2383]]

ratified by all of the States, the 50 States in the Union. Those
guarantees must be in place.
This Constitution, Madam Speaker, means something. And the language
in this Constitution means what it says. The text of this language
means what it meant, means what it was understood to be when it was
ratified. And if it is inconvenient or if we disagree with the
fundamentals, we should amend it. We shouldn't ignore it.
This Constitution grants Congress, this body in particular I am
speaking to, but also the Senate as well, only two authorities when it
comes to war; number one is, first, I will state it again, the
President is the commander in chief of all Armed Services. We didn't
have an Air Force then, but that is implied. So that is the standard,
Madam Speaker.
And then the Constitution grants Congress two different authorities
when it comes to war: Number one, the authority to declare war. That
has happened several times in our history, but the last time it
happened was in the beginning of World War II.
The second constitutional authority Congress has is to fund the war.
But what we are seeing come out of the Democrat side of this is to
micromanage the war in such a way that they can squeeze down and
constrict the commander in chief's authority and responsibility to
conduct war. And that can only end in disaster for our troops and
disaster for the destiny of our country.
But we do not have that authority to micromanage. We can appropriate
to the Department of Defense. We can appropriate to the Department of
Homeland Security and some other lesser departments within the fringes.
But we don't have the authority to micromanage.
I am going to go further, Madam Speaker, and take this position, that
if this Congress should decide that building a bunch of ICBM missiles
and placing them in places, say, across the polar ice cap are a high
priority and they appropriated the money for that and we found out that
we were in a shooting war that flared up maybe in six different places
in the world and we needed to spend that money for armored Humvees and
bullet-proof vests and more M-4 machine guns or more surveillance
equipment, whatever it might be; if this Congress refused to change
that appropriation, I am taking the position that the President has the
authority, because he is commander in chief at a time of war, to do an
interdepartmental transfer and prioritize those dollars within the
Department of Defense in the place that he sees fit because he is the
commander in chief. Anything less than that, Madam Speaker, is
something that ties the hands of the commander in chief and the feet
and puts our military at risk. That is the effort that is coming from
the other side of the aisle here. And it is one that will eventually
debilitate this country. This debate has encouraged our enemies and has
diminished our ability to succeed.
And so if we look back at history, I don't believe there has been any
time in history that this constitutional principle that I have laid out
here has been challenged and been taken to court. And even then, I
wonder how the Supreme Court would come down on this. But there were
times back in 1973, 1974 and 1975, at least 2 of those 3 years, if not
3 of those 3 years, when Congress put strings on Department of Defense
appropriations. And those strings said this, that none of these funds
and any funds heretofore having been appropriated, meaning any money
that is out there in the pipeline now, none of these funds can be spent
in either North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. And it shall
not be used in the skies over those four countries or offshore from
those four countries. So none of our appropriations money could be used
there by the restrictions that were put on by this Congress, the
micromanagement of this Congress.
But the fact was that we pulled our troops out of Vietnam at that
point. It wasn't the President's intent to go back into Vietnam, but it
was his intent to provide air cover. So when that message went, North
Vietnam probably didn't have C-SPAN then, but they watch what goes on
in this Congress, just like our enemies do in Iraq and the Middle East
today; they understood that Congress had lost its will to conduct war
in Vietnam. And they began to marshal their forces and provide the
munitions and the armament necessary to mount the invasion, which they
did in the spring of 1975. And in the aftermath of Congress
micromanaging a nonshooting war, 3 million people died in the South
China Sea, in South Vietnam and in the countries of Laos and Cambodia,
3 million people, because Congress injected themselves into a decision
that was made by the commander in chief.

But the commander in chief didn't challenge that. The commander in
chief at the time, the initial one was President Nixon, who was very
weak politically. And then, of course, the appointed, not elected,
President Ford, whom I revere, neither challenged that restriction put
on by Congress.
So I don't believe we have a constitutional challenge that has taken
place because President Ford and President Nixon did not challenge the
Congress when they began to tie the strings in Vietnam.
This Congress is preparing to tie the strings. And I am saying to the
public, Madam Speaker, and to the President, my position is I am going
to uphold this Constitution. I'm going to defend the President's right
to do interdepartmental transfers of funds if they think they are going
to tie strings to this. I think the President can ignore any conditions
that this House puts on him if the money is appropriated at DOD because
that is his responsibility as commander in chief, not the
responsibility of this Congress, not the Pelosi Congress, not the
Murtha Congress, but the President of the United States is the
commander in chief.
In fact, I believe the last gentleman I mentioned would like to be
the commander in chief. And given some of the legislation that he has
drafted and introduced in this Congress, I think he would probably
squeal had he been the commander in chief and someone tried to put the
strings on him that he has tried to put on the White House.
And I would add that, in the Department of Defense appropriations
bill last year, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was able
to slip language into that appropriations bill that would prohibit any
basing agreements from being negotiated in Iraq. He stated that it was
for permanent bases, but the language said any bases. And there was
misinformation that was brought to this floor. And my amendment that
tried to strip that out of the appropriations bill failed here on this
floor, which compelled me to go to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and ask for a letter to support my amendment, which we put to the
conference committee. And that letter then was enough to get that
stripped out of the language.
That is the kind of thing that is going on; that would have us
already moving out of Iraq if General Pace hadn't agreed with me and
made that request of the conference committee. And so the conference
report came without that language, and we were able to keep our
operations going in Iraq. It was that close in a Republican majority.
And now you see what's coming, Madam Speaker, under this new majority.
And here are some of the bullet points that come up on this subject
that would come from the majority side of the aisle. This new
appropriations, the strings that would be tied, the strings that I
contend are unconstitutional, one would be, the legislation prohibits
the deployment of troops who are not fully mission capable. Now, who
would decide that? A definition apparently that is identified by the
majority here in this Congress.
There are a list of other conditions in this, but I also recognize
that the gentleman from Arizona, who has a heart full of appreciation
for our troops and the Constitution, is on the floor. I would be very
happy to yield so much time as he may consume, Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his
taking the time to bring this message here to the floor and to talk
about it.
I guess my curiosity or my interest is piqued by you talking about
the conditions that are placed in this bill. I will tell you that I
fundamentally do not believe that you can justify, that any nation
could ever justify, announcing, while their troops were in the field in
the middle of a war, announcing that on a date certain in the future,
we are

[[Page H2384]]

going to unilaterally stop. It seems to me that the illogic of that
should be apparent to everybody, but even perhaps the immorality of
that should be important. How do we say to troops, well, fight until
August of 2008, and then, by the click of a tock on the arm of a clock,
by the hand going one more notch until it now becomes August 2008, the
fight is over. To me, that makes no sense. And I think it is important
that the Nation have a discussion about whether that policy makes any
sense.
I would like to discuss it from two points of view. First of all,
will withdrawing from Iraq end the war? I think that is a fair
question. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, if we
withdraw from Iraq, if we so called ``redeploy,'' that will end the
war. Well, I think that is worth discussing, and I think that is an
important issue. But I think there is another important issue, and that
issue is, what do we owe to the people of Iraq? And on that latter
point, I want to note that this morning a reporter for UPI appeared on
Washington Journal; her name is Pamela Hess. She has written a series
of articles that, as you know, in Washington Journal, they have callers
call in. And a caller called in and said, look, this is an unjustified
war; we are never going to win, all the various arguments. And she
said, well, I would like to suggest, and she was not taking anybody's
side in the fight; she said, I would like to suggest that it is
important for us to recognize that while one can criticize or analyze
the reasons why we went to war, and that is one set of facts and
circumstances, one can also look at why we are there now. And
interestingly, her assertion is one that I have made, and she laid out
an explanation. She said, having come into Iraq as we did, having
dismantled their army, sent them packing, having dismantled their
police forces, sent them packing, having dismantled, disassembled,
taken apart their government, we created a situation where there was
chaos.

{time} 1515

Ms. Hess, in her comments on Washington Journal this morning, said,
stop for a moment and imagine if another country had invaded the United
States and if they had wiped out our Army and wiped out and disbanded
our police forces and sent them home and then taken down our
government. How long would it take before even here in the United
States we began to see chaos, not unlike the chaos you see on the
streets in Iraq?
And her argument was one that I think is the other important argument
which is not being made in this debate. The one, as I mentioned, is if
we retreat, if we embrace defeat, as our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are urging us to do, and say we cannot win in Iraq, let us
leave and let us leave by a date certain, my first argument is, we can
leave but the war will not end. I would suggest they have already
demonstrated they will come to the United States. They will attack us
here. They will attack Americans and nonradical Muslims all over the
world. They will attack us and other Westerners in Europe, in Spain, in
Indonesia. They will attack us everywhere. So I will suggest the war
will not end.
The second argument is, forgetting how the war started, what
obligation do we have to assist the people of Iraq in reestablishing
the basics of a government, of a police force and of an army such that
they can stop chaos, they can stop lawlessness?
One of the ways that you hear people in the Middle East articulate
this, and the ambassadors from Jordan and Saudi Arabia came and made
this argument to us and I think you heard them talk, they said the
United States came into Iraq uninvited; the United States owes it to
the Middle East and to the people of Iraq not to leave uninvited. And
then you ask them what they mean by that, and they mean the same thing
that Pamela Hess said, which is we have an obligation to aid the Iraqi
people at least until they can get a government up and functioning, an
army up and functioning, and a police force so that chaos does not
reign.
I think those are the two key arguments. I would insert into the
Record articles that Ms. Hess has written since returning from her most
recent visit to Iraq that document the things that have changed.

Analysis: Loudspeaker Diplomacy

(By Pamela Hess)

Ramadi, Iraq, Feb. 17.--It's old fashioned. It's low-tech
but it works. One U.S. unit operating in Iraq has found the
best way to win hearts and minds is to put loudspeakers on
police stations. The speaker systems are erected over the
police stations. The daily broadcasts are 10 to 15 minutes
long. They are timed not to compete with the call to prayers,
and the messages are written by the police and local
political officials. Some of the speeches are copied onto CDs
and distributed around town. The broadcasts include Iraqi top
40 music; news dispatches taken from the BBC and Al Jazeera,
speeches by the governor and the police chief, warnings about
high threat areas, and the national anthem.
``That's a pretty catchy song,'' said Maj. Dan Zappa, the
executive officer of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment,
responsible for security operations in some of the most
contested areas of Ramadi. ``It's interspersed with popular
music. We've got video of kids dancing, hundreds of them,
jumping around.''
``We have the police chief in western Ramadi'' Zappa said,
``and he's addressing his family, his extended family and his
tribe.'' Said Maj. Tiley Nunnink, a guest staff member of the
battalion sent by the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in
Virginia: ``It's a vehicle for Iraqi policemen to say what
they need to say to the people.''
The loudspeaker program would be a gamble in a town without
a legitimate local police presence. In that case it would
just be the overbearing--and clumsily worded--symbol of the
occupation trying to co-opt local religious customs, senior
commanders said.
But they believe the loudspeaker broadcasts are part of
what seems to be turning the population in Ramadi against the
insurgency.
``The system's working because the local population is
approaching the Iraqi police with valuable information to
help put down criminal acts--roadside bombs, building IEDs,
stuff like that,'' Zappa said.
``Those are definitely the metrics, how does the population
respond to this?'' Nunnink said. ``You can hear it in the
broadcast. The broadcast says thank you for providing this
information. You're contributing to the further security of
the city.''
The loudspeaker initiative addresses a huge hole in U.S.
warfighting capabilities in Iraq: Insurgents can turn around
videos of successful attacks on U.S. convoys, or dead Iraqi
soldiers, or doctored or misrepresented footage of events
within hours, sometimes before those events have even been
reported to American headquarters. The videos show up on
racks of bootlegged DVDs and CDs that seem to be for sale on
nearly every street corner almost instantaneously.
Deployed U.S. forces however, do not have the authority to
respond directly on their own; ``information operations''
products and messages have to be approved at high levels in
the chain of command. That takes time, and by the time the
message is approved, the story has moved on. Score one for
the adversary.
``I have the power to call in a lethal air strike but not
to respond to an insurgent video,'' one senior U.S. commander
told UPI this week.
``We've been getting our butt kicked by the (local)
media,'' Zappa said. ``There would be an incident when they
would blow up a Humvee and kill two Marines and wound
civilians, and they would turn that around and say that we
wounded the civilians.''
``That's how information travels out here, by word of
mouth,'' Nunnink said. ``So the question was, how are we
going to compete with that?''
Ramadi is notorious as one of the bloodiest battlefields
for U.S. forces.
``There are local Iraqis doing great things for the
community, innocent civilians, heroes, trying to put down the
insurgents,'' said Zappa, a native of Pittsburgh. ``They are
out there but they don't have the ability to get the voice
that the insurgents do. So that population sitting on the
fence doesn't know, doesn't understand because they are not
in receive mode of that information.''
For the last four years, U.S. forces have tried hosting
daily radio shows or cobbling together television broadcasts
to try to win the loyalty of the people. They hand out flyers
promising additional reconstruction funds if violence ebbs.
None of the delivery methods are really ideal for this
culture; the flyers go unread, the television and radio
require a recalcitrant public to actively tune in to listen.
But one thing everyone listens to is the booming call to
prayers from the local mosque's loudspeakers, five times a
day, plus a sermon on Friday.
Zappa and Nunnink and several other headquarters officers
meet weekly to discuss the ``non-kinetic'' campaign--that is,
all the non-lethal activities the battalion conducts.
``Our approach was what can we do that is gonna be more
effective. We can kill bad guys all day but you're never
gonna kill enough of them; They are always gonna create more.
So we ask, what do the people really need? What's gonna give
a tactical advantage? What's gonna get the Iraqi army, get
the police out there? These are the things that drove us,''
Zappa said.
``We realized the opportunity was here if we could convince
people the insurgency is not supporting them, it was
destroying their city . . . it was just offering chaos, and
capitalize on that, and the little successes that

[[Page H2385]]

these (Iraqi police) guys were bringing to the table.''
It was in one of these meetings they came up with the
notion of a loudspeaker campaign of their own.

Analysis: The U.S. War of Ideas

(By Pamela Hess)

Washington, Jan. 5.--As the ``global war on terrorism''
enters its sixth year, the United States government is
beginning to rethink its approach to the larger battle--the
so-called ``war of ideas.''
The war on terror is, at its heart, a physical fight
against extremists. The war of ideas, on the other hand, is a
philosophical debate that pits extremist ideology in the
Muslim world against tolerance and freedom. So far, however,
the United States seems to be losing.
A Zogby International poll released in December shows that
the vast majority of Arabs in five key countries view the
United States and its policies in a strongly negative light.
In two countries, Jordan and Morocco, attitudes have declined
precipitously in the last year.
U.S. government officials are grappling with how to win the
war of ideas, and some are embracing fresh conclusions: that
U.S. actions speak louder than any propaganda it can put
forth; that the promotion of democracy should be a sidecar to
providing humanitarian aid and economic development in the
Arab world; and acceptance that the United States has only a
peripheral role to play in the core philosophical debate
central to the war of ideas.
``I think we have to think about influencing people. The
way we influence people is not just what we say, but by what
we do and who we are,'' a Pentagon official closely involved
in the Defense Department's piece of the war of ideas, told
UPI last month. ``It is not primarily about messaging.'' For
40 years during the Cold War, the U.S. waged a war of ideas
against communism and totalitarianism, and won.
``During the Cold War, that was arguably easier to do
because the Soviet Union was oppressing people. It was an
easier argument to make, and (in Eastern Europe) we were more
or less culturally on neutral ground,'' he said.
`` . . . They didn't really know about us because they were
in relatively closed societies. They didn't necessarily hate
us,'' he said.
This new battle is more difficult and requires a different
approach, the official said. ``We are starting in the hole,''
he acknowledged. ``In the Muslim world when 70 percent of the
people are opposed to the United States, that's a much harder
sell.''
It does not help that many people in the Middle East
identify their own governments as their oppressors, and the
United States as their oppressors' allies.
``We start going in, we go in knowing they dislike us,'' he
said. ``It's gonna take a long time.'' He conceives the
battle as having two major fronts, and in only one of them
can the United States play a major public role.
The official said the U.S. should not be trying to counter
terrorist propaganda. It should be finding ways to encourage
competing visions within the Islamic world.
``In the strategic sense I don't think we need to have a
counter-narrative,'' the official said. ``The violent
extremists, they have a single narrative. And I think from a
purely strategic perspective we just have to make sure there
are other narratives--not necessarily our own--that compete
with theirs.'' The debate must be engaged by ``protagonists
within the Muslim community,'' he said--probably theologians
from Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country.
``We know that the (Muslim) community is much more diverse
than it (seems). We have to find those people. I actually
think we would do ourselves a great favor if we worked from
the outside in, but look to examples outside of the Arab
core.''
There are ``individuals who don't necessarily agree with
the United States but who don't agree with violence as a
tool,'' he said. ``Supporting that is very important. How we
do that is the tough part, because we don't want to taint
them by virtue of overt association (with the United States).
The government is struggling with how to do that.''
The second front in the war of ideas is one in which the
United States can play a direct public role: changing the
conditions in the Arab world that feed terrorism--the lack of
educational and economic opportunity, poor health care, and
repressive regimes.
``Look at the level of despair in the Arab world. It rivals
sub-Saharan Africa,'' he said. ``That, plus broken regimes in
that part of the world--it's a tinder box.''
The official believes desperate conditions do not cause
Islamic extremism. But they are what makes the Middle East so
ripe for recruitment.
``They are the kindling of terrorism. They are what
terrorists exploit,'' he said. ``I think what the United
States can do is essentially remove the kindling.''
Done well, that could have two effects--draining the number
of potential terrorist recruits and sympathizers, and
demonstrating American good will in the Muslim world with
actions rather than words.
``Think about Hezbollah or al Qaida affiliates or . . .
(Muqtada Sadr in Iraq). What do they do? They don't stand on
street corners only getting out proselytizing. They set up
clinics, they give out food. That's their way of getting
in,'' he said.
``If you look at the (U.S. response to the) tsunami, to the
earthquake in Pakistan, the earthquake in Iran--that's when
we got the biggest spike,'' he said. ``Some of the things
that have given us the greatest return are not the things we
intended.''
The Bush administration's emphasis on democracy building in
the region is necessary, he said, but likely to fail if the
``kindling'' is not addressed.
``I do think you have to address the regimes. But I would
say that the second-tier efforts, removing kindling (is more
important). It's not just about notions, however justified,
of democracy alone. It's more broadly about (developing a)
healthy society, a civil society and addressing grievances.''
Moreover, what the United States considers a democracy may
have to change if democracy is to be embraced in the Muslim
world.
``We often ask the question... is Islam compatible with
democracy? But we never question the other side, taking the
religion as a given and seeing how flexible democracy is,''
he said. ``We pay lip service to the fact that (Arab
democracies are) not going to look like us. But I think we
very rarely say we ought to revisit what a democracy is, and
what role religion can play in it,'' he said. ``If we do that
we might be more flexible, and there might be different
approaches that might be successful.''
He is disturbed that pundits characterize the war on
terrorism as a clash of civilizations. ``That feeds our
adversaries,'' he said. ``The reality is I don't see this as
a (rift) between Islam or between the East and West. It's a
horizontal (split) within civilizations,'' he said.

Analysis: Iraq out of Time, Needs Troops

(By Pamela Hess)

Washington, Dec. 15.--A leading U.S. military analyst is
advocating the addition of some 30,000 U.S. forces to Iraq,
with a new mission: to protect the Iraqi people.
Frederick Kagan, a former instructor at West Point and now
a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,
believes his plan to add seven Army brigade combat teams and
Marine regiments to Baghdad and Anbar province early next
year could establish security in Baghdad by the fall of 2007.
While much of the focus in Washington is on increasing the
pace of American training of Iraqi security forces who will
eventually take on the bulk of the fighting, Kagan argues the
United States and Iraq no longer has that luxury of time.
``Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of
relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency
has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break
America's will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi
government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly
controlled,'' he writes. ``Violence is accelerating beyond
the Iraqis'' ability to control it.''
The surge in troops, if it succeeds in turning around the
deteriorating situation in Iraq, would pave the way for a
major troop withdrawal in 18 to 24 months, he says.
But the surge would also mean an increase in battle
casualties, now nearing 3,000.
``Short-term increase in casualties is not a sign of
failure ... As troops actively secure the population the
enemy will surge its attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi
civilians,'' Kagan writes.
He envisions a four-phase strategy in 2007: surging forces
into Iraq by March; preparing for ``clear and hold''
operations by June; clear critical areas by September; and
then transition control of them to Iraqi forces.
``These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear
critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods,
primarily on the west side of the city. After the
neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and Marines,
again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain
security,'' Kagan writes in a new paper for AEI.
The clear and hold operation would be closely linked to a
U.S. military led-reconstruction package with a fully funded
plan in place prior to the battles so they can immediately
pick up trash and get water and electricity working, area by
area.
``Even large reconstruction efforts are cheap compared to
continued fighting,'' he notes. It's an expansion of the
tactics used with some success in Tall 'Afar and Fallujah but
far more ambitious. Those towns were a fraction of the size
of Baghdad and relatively isolated, making them easier to
surround, empty and conduct house-to-house searches. Their
size and location also allowed the return of residents, and
potential fighters, to be managed.
Five U.S. brigades are currently operating in Baghdad along
with six Iraqi brigades. In Anbar province, there are two
Marine regimental combat teams and one U.S. Army brigade
combat team. Together, they comprise just 52,500 combat
forces in a total U.S. deployment of about 140,000. The
remainder are serving in combat service support,
headquarters, intelligence and other non-battle functions.
Kagan's plan would bring the number of combat troops to
84,000 by September 2007, nearly a 50 percent increase in
combat power.
Kagan is not alone in advocating a troop increase. Senior
military officers who spoke to UPI on condition of anonymity
say that having sufficient troops in Iraq to actually quell
the insurgency and combat sectarian violence is the one
approach the United States has not yet tried. Since the
insurgency began in earnest in November 2003, U.S. forces
have been playing catch-up, never having quite enough troops
to both carry out

[[Page H2386]]

aggressive offensive operations and to maintain a daily
presence in the areas already under control. That has
resulted in a nationwide ``whack-a-mole'' strategy, they
said.
When they have come down hard on one area, the enemy has
squeezed out to somewhere they are not. The training of more
than 300,000 Iraqi army and police has provided a ``holding''
force but their performance has been uneven at best, and in
the case of the police, sometimes counterproductive. And the
intervening three years has similarly allowed the insurgent
and militia forces to grow as well, diminishing the impact
Iraqi forces can have.
The answer, according to Kagan, is a dramatic increase in
the number of U.S. troops assigned to protecting Iraq's
civilian population.
To get the number of U.S. troops up, Kagan proposes to
accelerate the deployment of the next four brigades, now
scheduled from April to February. The remaining BCTs would be
extended from a 12-month deployment to 15 months. The Marine
regiments would be extended from seven months to 12. That
would bring the American troops presence in Baghdad up to
nine or 10 BCTs, each with about 4,000 soldiers. The plan
would also result in two additional Marine regimental combat
teams in Anbar province.
Kagan would not pull forces from outside of Baghdad into
that fight, Rather, he would leave them in place to continue
their daily operations--preventing insurgents and sectarian
militias from establishing a foothold in areas previously
secured from them.
This military version of ``robbing Peter to pay Paul'' has
been played out repeatedly throughout the war, commanders
have complained. When they have stabilized an area, troops
get called on to put out a fire somewhere else--leaving a
security vacuum where they came from and inviting new
violence.
If the clear and hold plan is carried out in Baghdad in
2007, Kagan writes that in 2008 the U.S. military could help
disarm Shiite militias, stabilize Anbar or northern Iraq,
and/or continue the training mission. Kagan concedes the
potential responses to an invigorated American offensive in
Iraq, outlining each factions' likely responses, and the most
dangerous short- and long-term scenarios, along with a plan
to counter them.
Kagan also says the U.S. Army and Marine Corps must add at
least 60,000 troops to their pay roll in the next two years
and the increase must be permanent.
It is ``vital to offset increased demand on the ground
forces in Iraq, and vital to provide strategic options in
many scenarios beyond Iraq,'' he writes.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said Thursday
that the most the Army can hope to recruit above the 80,000 a
year it does now is 6,000 to 7,000 additional soldiers.
Marine Corps officials believe they can add another 2,000
additional recruits annually. However, the Army and Marine
Corps could likely retain far greater numbers of troops than
they currently do. Re-enlistments and extensions are at all
time highs, particularly among combat units deployed to Iraq.
Schoomaker also warned that if he does not get additional
troops, and more freedom to use reservists to fill out the
force, the Army is in danger of ``breaking.''
Kagan says his plan will not break the Army: only four
units would be accelerated to Iraq, and they were tapped to
go anyway. Moreover, no unit will have less than a year
between deployments under his plan.
``Losing now will certainly break the force,'' Kagan
writes.
Kagan could not be immediately reached for comment. An AEI
spokeswoman said he was at a White House briefing.

As I mentioned, she has written a series of these articles. She went
to Iraq, as she explained this morning on Washington Journal, to look
at the question of how is it that our troops in Iraq feel they have
such an important mission, feel they are accomplishing things. She
mentioned that this was her third, I believe, visit to Iraq, and she
said, this time, more than either of the two visits, she felt like our
troops were more engaged, working more closely with the Iraqi people,
felt a greater kinship with the Iraqi people, and felt like they were
making progress.
Her purpose was to say, well, this must be just a myth. It must not
be true that our troops are really feeling like they are accomplishing
something; they are just parroting words given to them from the
commanders and higher up.
But her pitch this morning was that is not true; that in point of
fact, the thing that has changed was in part the attitude of our troops
and the enhanced ability of our troops who have now been deployed there
two or three times to speak Arabic, but also that the attitude of the
Iraqi people has changed. She talked about how the Iraqi people are now
rising up, resisting the violence, fighting back on their own and
engaged in this battle in a way in which she had not seen before.
I believe this supplemental is extremely important to our Nation. I
believe our confrontation with radical, militant Islam is the single
most important confrontation we will face probably in my lifetime. I
think back about the threat to world peace posed by communism, which is
the threat I grew up with as a child, and I have to evaluate that
threat versus the threat we now face with radical, militant Islam.
I have begun to read some of the writings on radical, militant Islam
and what they want. I would commend to anyone who cares about this
issue a book by a Yale professor by the name of Mary Habeck. Professor
Habeck came and spoke, I think you know, to the bipartisan caucus on
anti-terrorism and I heard her. I was very impressed. She has written a
book called, ``Knowing the Enemy,'' and that book goes into detail on
how the radical Islamic wing, the jihadi wing of the Islam faith,
strays from the Koran, and how at times they have twisted the Koran, at
least in her opinion, and have come to this conclusion that they must
reestablish the caliphate, they must stay at a constant state of war,
they want to not only reestablish the caliphate in its historical
areas, but then expand it and at least require that every nation in the
world be under the domination of radical Islam; and that everybody
there has to at least be offered the opportunity to live under radical
Islam. Then the question of whether or not they have to kill you if you
do not remains on the table, but it is an excellent book, and I would
urge that people read it. The other book that I would say people should
read is a book called, ``America Alone,'' by Mark Steyn.
Again, I think the challenge we face from radical Islam and its
confrontation of Western society, ours here in America, Japan, Germany,
France, Italy, Britain, is the single most important confrontation,
single most important challenge of our lifetimes for us, for our
children, for our grandchildren.
I understand the frustration of my colleagues who want us to get out
and get out as quickly as we can. It breaks my heart. I have been there
three times. I have seen grave errors made in the conduct of the war. I
am troubled by the conduct of the war. I am embarrassed by our conduct
of the war at times, but that does not answer the fundamental question.
The fundamental question is: Can we leave? If we leave, does the war
stop? If we leave, does it instead get worse?
I would suggest that if we leave Iraq, if we decide we cannot win
there now, if we follow what the current draft supplemental proffered
this week by the other side says and say in August of 2008, we are out
no matter what, I think things do not get better. I would suggest that
what happens is that the radical jihadi now in Iraq seeking to kill us
there simply pick up their stakes, jump in a pick-up truck and head to
Afghanistan, and suddenly we are fighting the same fight in
Afghanistan.
I heard my colleagues on the floor and in the statement say we should
be fighting in Afghanistan, and that is a serious fight, and the
Taliban and the insurgency are re-arising in their battle and their
challenge to us. I agree with them about that. But the problem is, what
have we gained if we just moved the fight from Iraq to Afghanistan? And
are we willing to stand up to the radical jihadi somewhere? Because if
we do not do it in Iraq, I would submit we are going to have to do it
somewhere.
I would also suggest that before we abandon Iraq, we need to think
about what it is we owe to the people of that society. Having torn down
their institutions, having torn down their government, their police and
their army, what do we owe them to help them rebuild those institutions
before we walk away?
And so I think the supplemental is very important. I think it is
going to get a lot of discussion and debate. I personally believe that
as long as you leave an arbitrary cut-off date in it that says we will
be out of there as of a date certain, it is something I personally
cannot support; and I would hope the American people would look at what
jeopardy that places us in.
I think you also hear General Petraeus say, look, I just started this
job. I need the troops to be able to accomplish it. There are early
signs we are making progress. Give me a chance.
I think that is a plea that I hope we do not abandon. I hope that it
is a plea

[[Page H2387]]

we acknowledge. I would agree that we cannot leave it totally open-
ended.
I thank the gentleman for allowing me some time on this point. I
thought it was worth my time to cite this reporter, Pamela Hess, and
talk about her because she has just been there. She went with the
purpose of trying to find out are things different, and at least as I
heard her comments on Washington Journal this morning, she said things
are different, progress is being made, and the Iraqi people are kicking
in. She cited vastly better than I can examples of that.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg),
and I pick up a point that Mr. Shadegg made, and that is about what the
enemy thinks and what happens if we should pull out of the central
battlefield in this war on terror called Iraq.
So I am going to just make this transitional point here, Madam
Speaker, and that is, I have a date written down here. July 11, 2004, I
was sitting in a hotel in Kuwait City waiting to go into Iraq the next
day, and I turned on al Jazeera TV, and I saw the face of this rather
notorious person right here, Moqtada al Sadr, and he was speaking in
Arabic with the English crawler going on underneath, and as I read what
he said, and I heard it sparingly in Arabic, he said, If we keep
attacking Americans, they will leave Iraq the same way they left
Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the same way they left
Mogadishu. Moqtada al Sadr who has now absconded to Iran to be with his
cronies who have been funding him, supporting him, sending him
munitions and training him.
But the philosophy that he has voiced here is a philosophy that
echoes back in the ghosts of Vietnam and through Lebanon and Mogadishu,
and that is, do our enemies take great heart in believing that we do
not have the will to complete a military task if it gets difficult or
if it gets long?
So the voice of Moqtada al Sadr saying Americans will leave Iraq the
same way they left Vietnam, Lebanon and Mogadishu will be replaced
should we not succeed in Iraq, and I will point out that Prime Minister
Maliki stood right back here at this microphone some months ago, and he
said, if this war against terrorism cannot be won in Iraq, it cannot be
won anywhere.
Our enemy will know that. We must succeed there on that battleground.
The al Qaeda is in Iraq. They have come there to fight us. They have
generated a few more out of the Sunnis there in particular; but if we
pulled out of Iraq the way the other side would like to see that
happen, then the battlefield does transfer to Afghanistan, and that
battlefield in Afghanistan will be inspired by a failure to achieve
victory in Iraq.
I would point out that the next poster you will see on this floor
after such a time, if this Congress acts in a disgraceful fashion, then
the next poster you will see will not be the face of Moqtada al Sadr,
Mr. Speaker, but it will be the face of Osama bin Laden himself and the
quote will not be quite like this. It will be close, though. It will
read like this: If we keep attacking Americans, they will leave
Afghanistan the same way they left Vietnam, the same way they left
Lebanon, the same way they left Mogadishu and the same way they left
Iraq.
That is what is coming if this side of the aisle does not suck it up
and understand that far more American lives are at risk if we do not
have the will and the resolve to succeed. Playing politics with the
lives of American soldiers and playing politics with the destiny of
America just simply cannot be tolerated.
This supplemental appropriations bill, as it is announced to be
written, and we do not have a draft to work with yet, is, I believe, an
unconstitutional micromanaging of the powers of the Commander in Chief
of the United States.
I wish to support and reiterate the statements made by the gentleman
from Arizona when he said with the tick of a clock, the fight is over.
Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, that a war would be like a prize fight
and you would go for 10 rounds, or if it is a championship battle,
maybe 15 rounds, could be 12, and when the round is over, the bell
rings and the fight stops, and we come home on a date certain, at a
time certain, without succeeding in a victory? That is an amazing and
astonishing thing, and anyone who is involved in a guerrilla warfare of
an insurgency against the United States will know all they have got to
do is go underground, hole up and wait; when American soldiers are
finally gone, whether lifted off of the U.S. embassy or whether they
happen to be deployed out of their troop ships or flown out in jet
airliners, they would know that then the enemy would have that
battlefield to themselves.
The point made also by Mr. Shadegg, we came in uninvited, we cannot
leave uninvited. That is a profound statement that should be in the
conscience of all of us, and we have made progress. We have made
significant progress.
The attitude of the Iraqi people I thought was good 3 years ago or
even 4 years ago, and I do understand that their attitude is betting
better and better, but they are also nervous that we are not going to
stick it out.
But if we should leave, there is no doubt things will get worse; and
the worse that I would describe, Madam Speaker, is I do not think this
is necessarily the worst-case scenario, but I will describe this as a
likely-case scenario, and that is, right now Iran is fighting a proxy
war against the United States. They are doing so in Iraq. They have
been funding and supporting two large Shia militia. One of them would
be Sadr's militia and the other one is the Badr Brigade. They have been
supporting anyone who will increase the chaos and the disorder in Iraq.
They have not only been funding them and supporting them and they have
been putting munitions into Iraq that are used against American service
personnel and against Iraqi military security personnel. That has gone
on for at least 2 years that I know of and it has gone on intensively
and finally came out in the press a little over a month ago.

{time} 1530

Iran is fighting a proxy war against the United States, and those who
attack the United States and provide munitions and funding and training
have a sovereign sanctuary to retreat to and hide in, and that is Iran.
I know of no example in history where you have had an insurgency that
was funded by a sovereign sanctuary nation that has been protected from
the assault of the troops that have been attacked out of that nation,
and that prevailing side has always been the side that had the
sanctuary, not the side that gave sanctuary.
I am opposed to giving sanctuary in Iran to them so they can fight
their proxy war against the United States. If we have enemies, they
cannot be hiding behind national boundaries. We must regard them as
enemies wherever they are. But if we do not prevail in Iraq, and the
pervasive influence that has taken place there by the Shi'a from Iran
is imposed in the southern part of Iraq and also in Baghdad as well,
which it surely could be controlled by the Shi'as, that would allow
Iran in the aftermath with their hegemony to control 70 to 80 percent
of the Iraqi oil.
If Ahmadinejad has control of 70 to 80 percent of the Iraqi oil, and
about two-thirds of the real estate in Iraq and ultimately maybe more
than that, his coffers get flushed full of cash. As the cash flows out
of his treasure chest, he starts putting more and more money into his
war chest, and that war chest becomes more and more nuclear capable,
accelerating their development of nuclear weapons, weapons, in the
plural, multiple plural, and means to deliver them, which means more
and more missiles to put nuclear warheads on them, not just to threaten
Israel, which Ahmadinejad has sworn to annihilate.
He has also sworn to defeat and annihilate the United States. Those
missiles would not be constrained to just having the range to drop into
Tel Aviv, but they would have soon the range to get into Western Europe
and, not much later than that, the range to reach the United States.
This is a nation that has a suicidal tendency and a belief that they
are called upon by Allah to annihilate the infidels. Infidels happen to
be anyone who doesn't agree with them on their religion.
So think, Madam Speaker, in terms of a Middle East that is controlled
by Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran. They set on the Strait of
Hormuz. If they have that valve, they will have

[[Page H2388]]

the valve at the Strait of Hormuz to control what goes in and what goes
out, which amounts to 42.6 percent of the world's exportable oil
supply. That is easily enough to make them filthy rich and easily
enough to affect the world's economy if they crank that valve down and
shut down just a valve, it is a figurative valve, shutting down the oil
exports going out of the Strait of Hormuz. They would control all of
the Middle East if this happens. Then this Nation would go into a
recession, probably a depression.
If that happens, that reflects back to China, because China also is
out there on the world market doing all that they can for the oil that
they need, and they are dependent on the U.S. economy. The United
States and China would be the big losers. Russia and Iran would be the
big winners. Iran for obvious reasons; Russia because they have a lot
of oil.
That explains why Putin has taken a hostile position against the
United States. He wants things to go that direction in Iraq. He wants
us out of there. He wants the Iranians to take over in Iraq because
that helps his world dominance and that helps his power base. That is
an equation that I don't believe is considered by the retreatniks that
are writing these line items of micromanagement into this supplemental
appropriations bill, this, I believe, it will come out to be an
unconstitutional supplemental appropriations bill.
I would be happy to recognize the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman. You hit upon one of the keys or
at least one of the major concerns or arguments that I have over the
idea of our colleagues that we can withdraw from Iraq and it will end
the war.
You touched upon the fact that radical Islam teaches that they must
kill all infidels. I make the point that, look, I understand the desire
of people who want us out of Iraq to end the war and end the killing
and to not have American troops on the battleground dying each day. I
want that as well.
The question one has to ask is, is that a viable strategy? A lot of
people think back to the Vietnam War and say, well, look, we ultimately
made a decision that we couldn't win the Vietnam War. Indeed, as your
discussion earlier in this hour pointed out, there were Members of this
Congress who decided we want out of Vietnam; we are going to cut the
funding back; that will bring us home.
Some could argue that with the help of this Congress, we did cut off
funding for the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War did end. I would
suggest for thoughtful Americans looking at this today, we are in a
very different world. To my knowledge, and I have asked this of a
number of people, I know of no incident ever where any North Vietnamese
leader had announced that, if we finished in Vietnam and left Vietnam,
that would be insufficient. I know of no Vietnamese, North Vietnamese,
leader, Communist Vietnam leader, even leader of Communist China at the
time, who said, as soon as we defeat the Americans in Vietnam, then we
will take the fight to them in the United States.
That is a very, very, very, very different circumstance than we have
here. Read Osama bin Laden. Read Ayman al Zawahiri. Read any of the
leaders of the radical militant Islamic movement in the world of the
leaders of al Qaeda, now thought to be reforming in the mountain areas
of Pakistan and reasserting itself in a more cohesive fashion; they
have made it clear. They don't want us just out of Iraq. Their goal
isn't, if the Americans will leave Iraq, the war will end. They have
never said that. What they have said over and over and over again is,
we intend to kill the great Satan.
You talked about Ahmadinejad. He has given speeches in which he
envisioned a world in which there is no Israel and a world in which
there is no United States. How does one unilaterally declare peace? I
think that is a fair question; could we have said at some point during
World War II, you know what, we are losing soldiers in France, we are
losing soldiers in the Netherlands fighting this battle, let's just
quit, and the war will end? Or had Hitler said, I am going on, I am
going forward, my plan is an Aryan domination of the world?
This is a different circumstance. The leaders of this radical,
militant, jihadist movement have said, we must confront the infidel. As
you just explained, they define it: Anybody who doesn't believe and
practice Islam the way they believe it and practice it must be killed.
I think by announcing, as this proposed supplemental bill does, and
the language of it clearly states, we will leave Iraq by August 2008 no
matter what. We have to think about the message that sends. That is a
very clear message. That message is, if you are Osama bin Laden hiding
somewhere in Pakistan or on the border lands between Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and you hear that message, and you know he is paying
attention, and he has heard that message, what do you think? If you are
Ayman al Zawahiri and you are his chief lieutenant and you hear that
message, it is very clear: Hang tight, lay low, go to the cities
outside of Baghdad, keep your profile low, kill a few people on the
side as you are going, but don't worry about it, because, in a handful
of months, maybe as early as next January, but, according to this
measure that the Democrats announced earlier this week, no later than
August 2008, the Americans will withdraw from Iraq, gone, finished, out
of here.

You have just announced to Osama bin Laden: Hang on, hold tight. In
August, the Americans will abandon Iraq. In August, the war will end,
and you will have control of Iraq, assuming the Iraqis can't defend
themselves at that point, and you can take this war forward wherever
you want to take it forward.
I don't understand the mindset of that. I understand the mindset of
somebody who says, end the war tomorrow, let's bring them home. That is
safe. If that's the choice of the American public, if that's the choice
of the majority in this United States Congress, that is something, get
them home and get them home tonight because they are safe.
But announcing that they will leave as of almost a year and a half
from now, and between then they fight for what, is something I just
can't understand. I do believe that Osama bin Laden and Al Zawahiri
will understand that message.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I reflect upon
the last time we fought this enemy, and the first time that I know that
we fought this enemy goes clear back into the early part of the 1500s,
and I pick it up in a book called, ``Christian Slaves, Muslim
Masters,'' when the Corsairs, Barbary pirates, would set upon the
merchant marines that were sailing around the Mediterranean; they also
raided the coastlines from Greece all the way up along the coast,
Italy, France, Spain, up to England and as far north as Iceland.
Iceland itself was the furthest, most northerly venture on the part
of the Barbary pirates, who pressed 400 Icelanders into slavery, took
them back to the Barbary Coast on the north shore of Africa and put
them into slavery, where they died faster than any of the other slaves.
But all together the history totals up about 1.25 million Christian
slaves pressed into slavery by the Barbary pirates. This was just in
the 1500s.
Now, the first shooting war we got into in the United States began
right after the end of the violence in the Revolutionary War. We
finished, the battle was over, and 1783, here in this country, we had
the protection of the French flag for our merchant marine at that time
on the high seas; 1784, we lost the protection of the French flag when
we had won our independence. Between that period of time and our
Constitution being ratified in 1789, the protection of the French flag
left us.
So, from 1783 was when hostilities ended with Great Britain; 1784,
the Barbary pirates fell upon our merchant marine ships, pressed our
soldiers into slavery, and we had to build a Marine Corps and a Navy to
go on and take on the Barbary pirates who were negotiated with in 1786
by Thomas Jefferson and by Ben Franklin and by John Adams. Jefferson
brought a report back to this Congress, and that report is clearly a
document within the history of this Congress.
It can be found in a report that is delivered over here in the
Library of Congress, where he said that he had tried to negotiate with
the Muslim leader at

[[Page H2389]]

the time, and he asked: Why do you attack us? Why do you kill us? We
have no quarrel with you. We have had a peaceful posture with regard to
you, and yet your whole regime sets upon us in the high seas.
The answer he got back was, Allah commands that we do this. He
commands that we attack and kill you, or press you into slavery until
you either pay homage or adopt and convert to our religion.
That report comes back from Thomas Jefferson. Those are the same
circumstances that we are in today, just a few, couple 300-plus years
down the line. Jefferson's analysis was, how do you negotiate with
people who have a religious belief that they need to kill you in order
to be saved? In fact, in Jefferson's report, the world of Islam over
there, the Barbary pirates at the time said that anyone who was killed
attacking the infidels would surely go to paradise.
He understood them. That is why he bought a Koran, was to do his
oppositional research. That is what we are up against today, the same
thing. If we don't understand our enemy, if we don't understand nosce
hostem, which is a Latin term for, ``know my enemy,'' came out of
Romans, then we have the kind of appropriations bill that would have
all these strings tied in such a way as the President can only deploy
unprepared troops, and then it sets up some standards for that. If we
need to defend ourselves, we couldn't do so unless we met this standard
that is created by the other side of the aisle.
Mr. KING of Iowa. This bill presumably also requires the Iraqi
government to meet the key security, political and economic benchmarks
established by the President in his State of the Union address. That
was January 10.
Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. It is interesting, since you were talking about history
and since you have been using this quote, and I knew this before the
gentleman got here, but the last time, to my recollection, that the
United States Congress has cut off funds for troops in the field and
demanded they be taken out of someplace was in November of 1993. It was
a motion written by a gentleman from New York, a Republican by the name
of Ben Gilman. It was brought to this floor by a Republican by the name
of Jerry Solomon, and it instructed the Clinton administration to get
troops out of Somalia.
I just think that is important to add, in a historical context, that
this has happened before. In fact, Members through the Republican party
have led the effort to get the troops out of a Muslim-dominated country
within the last couple of decades.
I do want to remind the American people that you were not here for
that. I was. I had to do a little research to remember the exact set of
circumstances, but I do think it is important to add to this debate.

{time} 1545

Mr. KING of Iowa. I also recognize you are a fair-minded
Mississippian, and I appreciate that and the tone and the history that
you have added. And perhaps on your walk across here, you might not
have heard my remarks with regard to the Vietnam era and the
constraints that were put on the appropriations bill then. And so I
don't think that we are in disagreement on the precedence or the
history. We may or may not be in disagreement on the constitutional
aspects.
And what I have done is taken a position that Congress does not have
the authority to micromanage. And I was not here to put up a vote on
that, but you can expect, Madam Speaker, how I would have voted had
that been the case.
But these micromanaging efforts, and this is a newspaper publishing
information, would appear to require that the Iraqi government meet key
security, political, and economic benchmarks that were established by
the President in the State of the Union Address on January 10. Now,
those were goals at that time. I don't speak for the commander in chief
on that, but I know now that we are well passed January 10. On January
10, there wasn't a plan that had been unfolded like the plan we are
working on today. And you have to be flexible in a time of war. And to
go back and pull things out of his speech and say, and we are going to
tie you to that on appropriations, I think that does two things: I
don't think that is prudent, and I don't think it is constitutional.
Another one would be the Iraqi failure to meet these benchmarks would
mean the beginning of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and will restrict
economic aid to the Iraqis. Another case, Madam Speaker, of setting up
a standard here in Congress, and the slow wheels of this Congress can
creep along. And then we put something in place that would prohibit us,
prohibit the commander in chief from being flexible in time of war.
It goes on. Another standard would be, if progress toward meeting any
key benchmark is not met by July 1, 2007; we will hardly get any
legislation passed before then; a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq
begins immediately and must be completed within 180 days.
Madam Speaker, progress towards meeting benchmarks, that is a gray
line, not a bright line but a grey one. Well, we are making progress
every single day, but I don't think the people that are drafting this
legislation would agree that we are making progress every single day.
So, therefore, by their judgment of this standard, that would mean that
we begin pulling out July 1, 2007, just a few months from now, and may
be even retroactive, because I don't think this bill can get out of
this Congress by then.
Another one says, if key benchmarks are not met October 1, 2007, a
redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq begins immediately and must be
completed within 180 days.
It goes on and on. And, again, this is a huge, huge reach for
Congress to get involved in the micromanagement of a war. There have
always been consequences.
And, by the way, the gentleman from Mississippi that raised the issue
of the appropriations bill in the early 1990s Congress that said, get
out of Somalia, if you look at the aftermath of that, I think it would
have been far better for the United States had we stayed and had we
completed the mission there; it would be perhaps done by now and not a
place where there are terrorists pulling into that. There has been a
long, drawn out war in that area since that period of time that has
washed back and forth across that countryside. And part of it is
because we lacked resolve. And part of that is shown right here in the
words of Muqtada al-Sadr.
So, Madam Speaker, I would bring up one more point, and that would
be, we have made progress there. And the progress that we have made,
some of it is measured by construction projects that are completed.
There has been a lot that has been said about things not getting done
in Iraq, and I would submit that I have been over there a number of
times but twice specifically to review the construction projects that
have been initiated and in progress and completed. And this shows in
green the projects that are completed. Along that map, it is easy to
see that we have got most of our work done. We are nearing the end
really of all of them. The green are completed. The yellow is under
construction, and the red are those that are planned but not started.
Tiny little numbers under the red here. Big numbers under the green.
Significantly smaller numbers than those that are under construction.
We have gotten a lot of projects completed, Madam Speaker, and we are
almost to that point where we can wrap up this work that started here
in Iraq, that started out with $18.4 billion. We put supplemental
funding in there. And then a final number, I can't speak to factually
here on the floor, although it is significantly larger than $18.4
billion. There has been a lot of infrastructure that has been picked up
to speed. If you look around here on the edge, these are all border
forts along the edge on the border between Iran and Iraq. That is also
the case down along here with Jordan and Syria. We have fortified the
border and put people there on the outposts. That has done a lot to
slow things down, but it has not done enough to keep it from coming out
of Iran.
I have been to a good number of these projects. Some would be sewer
projects in Sadr City, Baghdad, itself that began about 3 years ago.
And under the

[[Page H2390]]

first armored division controlling that, General Carelli, who is now
the Corps commander there. I have been up here to the Kirkuk area where
the mother of all generators sits there producing electricity 24 hours
a day, every day, a gas-fired generator plant. There is work done all
over this area. We have gone back and reflooded the swamps where the
swamp Arabs lived that were dried up and drained by Saddam Hussein.
They have moved back into that area. About 8,000 square miles were
drained; we got about 4,000 square miles put back in. We have done a
tremendous amount to improve the environment there in Iraq, and 80
percent of the violence is confined to Baghdad and 30 miles within
Baghdad. So why would we be concerned that we can't control this or we
can't manage this?
I would point out that, in 1944, on December 22 of 1944, the 101st
airborne was surrounded at Bastogne, and the Nazis demanded that the
101st surrender. And General McCollum's response was a retort, it was
``Nuts.'' The Germans didn't know how to understand that, Madam
Speaker. But what it meant was: We are staying here. We have got you
right where we want you. You are all around us. We can hit you. We can
fire and hit you in any direction.
And the Americans underwent a relentless artillery barrage, but the
response, the rhetoric, ``Nuts'' prevailed. And General Patton's Army
was able to relieve the 101st Airborne. The 101st today contends they
didn't need the help; they would have liked to just whip the Germans
themselves.
That was the spirit we had in this country and our fighting personnel
in December of 1944. When they were surrounded, and it was hopeless,
they said, ``Nuts.'' Now we have Baghdad surrounded and we have Baghdad
penetrated, and all we have to do is maintain stability there, and we
have people talking about surrender. And I think they are nuts, Madam
Speaker, to talk about surrender with all of this investment in blood
and treasure, to be so close to success and victory here, and to be
waffling and go wobbly at a time when you need a spine and you need
courage.

To bring this supplemental appropriations bill with all of these
strings attached that are designed to appease the 75 or 76 members of
the Out of Iraq Caucus and the left-winged liberals here in this
Congress, not because of their leadership on war but because of their
position on other issues, I think, is a disservice to the American
people. The American people know how important this is. And the fathers
and mothers, the widows and widowers, and sons and daughters of those
who have given their lives for Iraqi freedom and a safer future for
Americans must be respected and honored.
As the father of a son who was killed over there, a Gold Star father
from California said to me, and his name was John, he said, ``It is
different now. You can't pull out of there now, because that soil is
sanctified by the blood of our children. You must stick with this
battle and succeed and not lose your will.''
As a major from Kentucky said to me the last time I was there, ``We
appreciate your prayers. We have everything we need to do what we have
to do. We have all of the weapons we need and the clothing and the food
and the training that we need, and all of the support that we need. So
when you pray for us, pray for the American people. Pray that the
American people understand this enemy that we are up against. Pray that
the American people don't lose their resolve. We will not lose ours.''

____________________