[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.

                          ____________________