[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 45 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3150-S3152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we all know and understand that
Americans are deeply concerned about the war in Iraq. We all represent
the finest and bravest men and women across this great country who put
themselves in harm's way to protect our very way of life. We all want
our brave men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to come
home as soon as possible.
Members of Georgia's military community have given mightily to our
efforts in the Middle East. In fact, members of the 3rd Infantry
Division, headquartered at Fort Stewart, GA, are heading to Iraq for
the third time as we speak, and I wish to underscore how much we
appreciate them and their families. These resolutions which the
Democrats continue to put forth undermine these men and women. Any
attempt to set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, as
the latest resolution does, will embolden the enemy and tell them
exactly how long they need to wait until they are free to take over and
wreak havoc in Iraq.
I understand the desire to have the Iraqis take responsibility for
their own country and step up to the plate in terms of taking the
political, economic, and military actions necessary to secure Iraq, and
I strongly support that goal. However, this resolution is the wrong way
to accomplish it.
These resolutions--and I believe there have been about 17 put forth
over the course of the last couple of months--simply send the wrong
message to our troops, and they send the wrong message to the enemy.
Winston Churchill once said:
Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the
temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup poll, always feeling
one's pulse and taking one's temperature.
I think that sums up what is going on here today.
These resolutions only serve to micromanage the war by a political
body which simply is unable to do it effectively. We have a Commander
in Chief who is entrusted with managing and leading our military during
wartime, and the Commander in Chief's new plan for Iraq deserves a
chance to succeed. These resolutions are designed to ensure that the
President's plan fails, not that it succeeds.
Also, these resolutions are completely contradictory to the Senate's
support for GEN David Petraeus, our new commander of the multinational
forces in Iraq. No Senator opposed General Petraeus's nomination. I
have not heard anyone criticize him, and rightly so. We need to give
General Petraeus and his counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq a chance to
succeed. The people of Georgia, myself included, want General Petraeus
to succeed. We understand the consequences of failure, and there is no
question the latest resolution we are considering in this body will not
help him succeed.
This resolution advocates transitioning U.S. forces in Iraq to
protecting U.S. coalition personnel, training and equipping Iraqi
forces, and conducting counterterrorism operations, and calls for a
diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to stabilize Iraq. Many
people say the situation in Iraq requires a political and not a
military solution. I strongly agree with that position; however, it is
not possible to have a political solution or to make political progress
if citizens live in an unstable and unsafe society. Some level of order
and stability must be in place before a political solution can take
hold.
In America, we take order and stability for granted because we live
in a country that is extremely safe, secure, and stable. However, Iraq
is not the United States. Iraqis do not live in a secure and stable
society, and order and stability must be in place before there can be
any hope for a long-term political solution. The additional troops we
are sending are meant to create that order and stability, particularly
in Baghdad. We need to give this effort a chance to succeed, and we
need to create stability and order before we can be hopeful about a
long-term political solution.
The Reid resolution opposes the President's plan without offering any
concrete alternative. It opposes the mission which the Senate has
unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out, and it will not
serve to help our troops and our commander in Iraq succeed in the
mission we have sent them on to accomplish. For these reasons, I urge
my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to point out some of the bitter
ironies of this debate.
Since roughly January, when the new majority took charge of this
Congress, there have been numerous proposals with regard to how we
should conduct ourselves in Iraq. I have tried to keep track of the
various resolutions that have been proposed and, as my colleagues can
see, there have been, according to my count, at least 17 resolutions.
They start with the Biden and Levin resolutions, the Reid-Pelosi
resolution, the Murtha resolution, the Biden-Levin resolution, the
Conrad funding cut resolution, a waiver plan, a timeline plan, the
Feingold resolution, the Obama resolution, the Clinton resolution, the
Dodd resolution, the Kennedy resolution, the Feinstein resolution, the
Byrd resolution, the Kerry resolution, and then the latest, the Reid
resolution we are on today.
Under this current iteration before the Senate, it says: The
President shall commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from
Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all
U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number that are
essential for the following purposes: protecting U.S. and coalition
personnel and infrastructures, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and
conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.
The reason I find this list of resolutions--and now with the
culmination on March 15--somewhat ironic is we are beginning to see
some of the signs of success of the new plan, the Baghdad security plan
proposed by Prime Minister Maliki, with the support of the United
States.
For example, in the Associated Press yesterday, Robert Reid wrote
that bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the
security crackdown that began a month ago and that execution-style
slayings have been cut nearly in half.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
I want to add a few key quotes to highlight what this article says.
. . . there are encouraging signs. Gone are the ``illegal
checkpoints,'' where Shiite and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and
hauled away members of the rival sect--often to a gruesome
torture and death.
He goes on to say:
The rattle of the automatic weapons fire or the rumble of
distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is
beginning to return to the city's once vacant streets.
Consider this:
In the months before the security operation began, February
14, police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the
capital--victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last
December, more than 200 bodies were found each week--with the
figure spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police
reports compiled by the Associated Press. Since the crackdown
began, weekly totals have dropped to about 80--hardly an
acceptable figure but clearly a sign that death squads are no
longer as active as they were in the final months of last
year.
[[Page S3151]]
Mr. President, I think it is important to recognize that it has only
been since February 14 that this new security plan has been operating
and that Iraqi brigades and American surge forces are coming over the
period of months and will not finally be deployed there for some time
yet. Yet we are seeing some preliminary indications--nobody is claiming
success or victory, but there are some preliminary indications that the
plan is actually working. The article quotes MG William Caldwell, and I
share in the sentiments he expresses when he says:
I would caution everybody about patience, about diligence.
This is going to take many months, not weeks, but the
indicators are all very positive right now.
We should also be cautious and patient and diligent, but we should
also recognize that progress is being made with this new plan proposed
by General Petraeus, embraced by the President and his new Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates, and we should give it the chance to work.
That is precisely the reason I think this resolution is so misguided.
The idea that we have simply lost and we have to give up, with no
constructive alternative plan being suggested to deal with what will
occur. In all probability there will be massive ethnic cleansing and a
vast humanitarian crisis when the various sects continue to escalate
their conflict against one another, which likely will draw in other,
for example, Sunni majority nations such as Saudi Arabia to try to
protect the Sunni minority in Iraq, and Iran, a Shiite majority nation,
seeks to take advantage of the chaos there. Without the stabilizing
influence of the U.S. and our Iraqi allies and this new Iraq security
plan, it is probable that this troubled area of the world will descend
into a vast regional conflagration.
What I don't understand about this resolution is that there is
virtually not even a nod of the head or a tip of the hat to the fact
that, as Senator Levin pointed out, there are about 5,000 to 6,000 al-
Qaida foreign fighters in Al Anbar Province. This so-called phased
redeployment, which is just Washington-speak for getting out of town as
fast as you can, leaves a void, a power vacuum in this area where al-
Qaida can basically run wild and continue as they did in Afghanistan
before 9/11--to plan, recruit, train, and finance terrorist attacks and
launch them against the United States.
I am sure I wasn't the only one who was chilled at the testimony
released today in the newspapers of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who
confessed to beheading Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter,
in Iraq and some 30 other terrorist attacks, including the attacks of
9/11. But how anybody in good conscience can advocate simply quitting
in Iraq with the threat of 5,000 to 6,000 al-Qaida foreign fighters
there, with the risk of a regional conflict, along with the tremendous
body blow that would cause to the American economy, I don't know. I
just don't understand it.
I was also surprised to see in today's New York Times some comments
by Senator Clinton, who, of course, is running for the Democratic
nomination for President. Notwithstanding this resolution and her
stated support for the resolution, she is quoted as saying she foresees
a ``remaining military as well as political mission'' in Iraq. If
elected President, she would keep a reduced military force there to
fight al-Qaida--I am glad to hear that--deter Iranian aggression,
protect the Kurds, and possibly support the Iraqi military.
It is a little troubling. While she says that would be her goal, it
appears to be inconsistent with this resolution that she also says she
will vote for. This is another quote in the article of March 15 in the
New York Times. She said:
So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect
those national security interests and continue to take our
troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser.
This article says:
Asked if her plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs.
Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the
resolution also called for ``a limited number'' of troops to
stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other
personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct
``targeted counterterrorism operations.''
I don't know how that is consistent with this resolution. I don't
know how it is consistent with her other statement that she made on the
campaign trail when she said:
If we in Congress don't end this war by January 2009, as
President, I will.
It is speculated in this article that what she is proposing is a
mirror image of a plan advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, a Pentagon
comptroller under Donald Rumsfeld. He estimated that no more than
75,000 troops would be required for the kind of plan she describes, as
opposed to the 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq once
the surge is complete. But I wonder whether it is wise to embrace a
plan proposed by the Pentagon's comptroller--in other words, the
Pentagon's numbers cruncher, the budget man, as opposed to the plan
proposed by GEN David Petraeus, who is an acknowledged expert in
counterinsurgency matters, the very kind of plan that is being executed
now with the Baghdad security planning--clearing, holding, and
building. I cannot understand how you would embrace a plan essentially
proposed by the Pentagon's bookkeeper as opposed to the Pentagon's best
generals.
I see the distinguished whip on the Senate floor. I will yield the
rest of our time to him.
I cannot understand why our friends on the majority side cannot make
up their minds. We have 17 resolutions and counting. It seems as if
each day brings a different plan but none to address the most urgent
needs for our national security in the Middle East.
Exhibit 1
Some Progress May Mean Hope for Baghdad
(By Robert H. Reid)
Baghdad.--Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad
since the U.S.-led security crack down began a month ago.
Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.
The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to
episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor
markets--favored targets of car bombers.
There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore
order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.
But while many Iraqis are encouraged, they remain skeptical
how long the relative calm will last. Each bombing renews
fears that the horror is returning. Shiite militias and Sunni
insurgents are still around, perhaps just laying low or
hiding outside the city until the operation is over.
U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic
forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation a
success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of the
five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the
streets, and the full compliment of American reinforcements
is not due until late May.
U.S. officials say that key to the operation's long-term
success is the willingness of Iraq's sectarian and ethnic
political parties to strike a power- and money-sharing deal.
That remains elusive--a proposal for governing the country's
main source of income--oil--is bogged down in parliamentary
squabbling.
Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs.
Gone are the ``illegal checkpoints,'' where Shiite and
Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away members of the
rival sect--often to a gruesome torture and death.
The rattle of automatic weapons fire or the rumble of
distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is
beginning to return to the city's once vacant streets.
``People are very optimistic because they sense a
development. The level of sectarian violence in streets and
areas has decreased,'' said a 50-year-old Shiite, who gave
his name only as Abu Abbas. ``The activities of the militias
have also decreased. The car bombs and the suicide attacks
are the only things left, while other kinds of violence have
decreased.''
In the months before the security operation began Feb. 14,
police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the
capital--victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last
December, more than 200 bodies were found each week--with the
figure spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police
reports compiled by The Associated Press.
Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have dropped to
about 80--hardly an acceptable figure but clearly a sign that
death squads are no longer as active as they were in the
final months of last year.
Bombings too have decreased in the city, presumably due to
U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons caches and to more
government checkpoints in the streets that make it tougher to
deliver the bombs.
In the 27 days leading up to the operation, 528 people were
killed in bombings around the capital, according to AP
figures. In the first 27 days of the operation, the bombing
death toll stood at 370--a drop of about 30 percent.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made a show of
confidence Tuesday by traveling out of Baghdad for meetings
with Sunni tribal leaders and government officials in Ramadi,
a stronghold for Sunni insurgents.
``I would caution everybody about patience, about
diligence,'' U.S. spokesman
[[Page S3152]]
Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell said Wednesday. ``This is going
to take many months, not weeks, but the indicators are all
very positive right now.''
Figures alone won't tell the story. In Vietnam, generals
kept pointing to enemy body counts to promote a picture of
success even when many U.S. soldiers and civilian officials
realized the effort was doomed.
True success will be when Iraqis themselves begin to feel
safe and gain confidence in their government and security
forces. Only then can the economy, long on its heels and with
unemployment estimated between 25 and 40 percent, rebound and
start providing jobs and a future for Baghdad's people.
A long-term solution also must deal with the militias that
sprang up after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Much of the relative calm may be due to a decision by
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to remove his armed militiamen,
known as the Mahdi Army, from the streets. Al-Maliki warned
the young cleric that he could not protect them from the
Americans during the offensive.
U.S. troops rolled into the Mahdi stronghold of Sadr City
on March 4 without firing a shot--a radical change from
street battles there in 2004.
Some Mahdi Army fighters may have left the city. But Iraqis
who live in Shiite neighborhoods say many others are still
around, collecting protection money from shopkeepers and
keeping tabs on people--albeit without their guns.
When American patrols pass by, Mahdi members step into
shops or disappear into crowds until the U.S. troops are
gone. Sunni militants remain in some areas of the city too,
although last year's sectarian bloodletting drove many Sunnis
from their traditional neighborhoods, depriving extremists of
a support network.
Sunni militants, meanwhile, are believed to have withdrawn
to surrounding areas such as Diyala province where they have
safe haven. The U.S. command sent an extra 700 soldiers
Tuesday to protect the highways leading into the capital from
there.
If militants from both sects are indeed lying low, that
suggests they may have adopted a strategy of waiting until
the security operation is over, then reemerging to fight each
other for control of the capital.
Conscious of that possibility, new U.S. commander Gen.
David Petraeus and other senior generals avoid setting a date
for when the operation would end. They insist the extra
troops will stay as long as they are needed.
And they say the military will continue to track down key
militia and insurgent figures, in hopes of crippling the
leadership of insurgent groups before they attempt to re-
emerge.
``You generally think that if you're going to achieve (the
desired results), that it would need to be sustained
certainly for some time well beyond summer,'' Petraeus told
reporters last week.
The No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, has
recommended that the buildup stretch longer, into the early
months of 2008--if Congress will provide the money.
But positive trends in Iraq have proven hard to sustain.
Hopes for reconciliation are quickly shattered. There have
been a series of failed security initiatives. With so many
uncertainties, public opinion appears mixed.
``We gain nothing from this government. No change,'' said
Abu Zeinab, a Shiite father of two in Baghdad's Hurriyah
district. ``Today is like yesterday. What is the
difference?''
In eastern Baghdad, one homeowner whose house was seized by
the family of a Shiite militiaman gained enough confidence to
tell them to leave or he would turn them in to the
Americans--unthinkable only a few weeks ago.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi is
recognized.
____________________