[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 45 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3158-S3161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk again to the resolution 
pending on the floor. I look forward to having the debate continue on 
the other options for the resolution.
  I am against the resolution on the floor because I do not see a 
purpose. I do not see a purpose for a nonbinding resolution that makes 
America look irresolute. What could we be thinking to try to take 
something across the floor of the Senate or the House of 
Representatives that would give any signal to our allies or to our 
enemies that we cannot finish a job, that the war on terrorism is 
important but not important enough to see it through?
  I think of the young men and women who have died in this war. They 
are giving their lives, the ultimate sacrifice, as part of their legacy 
to our country. They are leaving something for our children and 
grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.

  If we pass nonbinding resolutions that undercut the mission and the 
purpose for which they have given their lives, which is the war on 
terror, to keep freedom in America, we would be doing a great 
disservice that is undeserved for those great patriots. Our young men 
and women throughout the years have been willing to go into the 
volunteer service. The people who are fighting in this war are 
volunteers.

[[Page S3159]]

We have had volunteers and even people who didn't volunteer in past 
wars to make sure that America stood strong for freedom. I cannot 
imagine that the Congress during World War II would have passed a 
nonbinding resolution to say: We don't think our troops should be in 
Europe.
  We are sinking to new lows. I hope we can resist the political winds 
that have caused us to get to this point. The only reason we would pass 
a nonbinding resolution is to send a political message. I don't think 
the Senators who have stood on this floor for decades before us would 
have passed resolutions that meant nothing except to send a message 
that would undercut our troops in the field.
  Do the people who want to pass a resolution such as this believe this 
isn't an important war? We are fighting for our children's futures 
every bit as much as we have in any conflict in which we have been 
engaged. We are fighting to keep terrorists from coming back to America 
and threatening our way of life and the opportunity that America offers 
for our children. If we look irresolute, if we look weak, if we look as 
if we can't be strong, we will put a blemish on the sacrifice that has 
been made already by so many of our young men and women, and we will 
undercut those who are serving right now in the theater in Iraq. I 
can't imagine, when we think this through, that that would be the 
course that a deliberative Senate would take.
  The President of the United States knows we have not achieved the 
success we hoped to. For that reason, he is taking a different course. 
Any one of us in Congress might have done it a different way. There is 
no question that many in Congress are concerned about the mission. That 
does not mean we take the step of a nonbinding resolution that says we 
don't support the Commander in Chief. The Constitution didn't provide 
for Congress to command our military. The Constitution provides one 
Commander in Chief, not 535. It would be so wrong for 535 people to 
second-guess the Commander in Chief, who has announced that the plan he 
has put forward is one that was made in the military.
  Many of us talked to General Petraeus. We asked questions, because 
there are questions about embedding our troops in the field outside the 
protected zone. General Petraeus totally defends the plan. He takes the 
responsibility for the plan. He believes it will work. In fact, there 
are signs things are getting better. There are signs the Iraqi 
Government is strengthening its measures to crack down on insurgents, 
militias, any of the groups that have been killing innocent people. 
There are signs that there are ways this could succeed.
  During one of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, Senator 
Lieberman asked General Petraeus if a resolution such as we are voting 
on today would give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression 
that the American people were divided. General Petraeus answered:

       That is correct, sir.

  We have been talking about this for the 2 months-plus that we have 
been in this session of Congress. We certainly talked about it all last 
year. We will continue to talk about it. I hope what we say on the 
floor is carefully crafted so we can disagree with people who do 
support this resolution, and we can do it based on the Constitution, on 
principles of war, on the relationship that Congress should have with 
the President. All of these are legitimate. There can be disagreements 
about what is the best approach for finding success, but what we cannot 
disagree about is that we must win the war on terror, we must show 
America's commitment, and we will not undercut our troops who are in 
harm's way today.
  I have seen all the iterations of the resolutions that have been 
proposed by the majority. They have changed many times. Some of those 
resolutions even set deadlines for us to withdraw troops. What do my 
colleagues think that does for the troops who are there right now? If 
our enemy knows we are going to start the withdrawal of troops on a 
certain deadline, what does that do to their treatment of the people 
who are on the ground right now? They would consider that we have put a 
bull's-eye on every one of our young men and women with boots on the 
ground right now. It would be akin to saying: We are going to leave 
here so whoever is here now is not going to have the support needed to 
finish this job. If we are not going to finish the job, why wouldn't 
they step up their efforts, which is exactly what they would do.
  We have to look at the reality. No matter what kind of front we would 
put on a resolution that shows that we do not have the resolve, the 
commitment to see this through, it will embolden the terrorists. When 
the terrorists think we are going to leave or that we can't take it, 
that we have to start an exit without regard to the success of the 
mission, then what would keep them from beginning to take over Iraq, 
make it a terrorist haven, make it the training ground from which they 
could proliferate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists all over 
the world? We have already seen that in many specific instances. This 
would give them a bigger field in which to train, one that is not going 
to be necessary to hide. It will give them more revenue to produce 
weapons that could hurt even more.
  I have cosponsored S. Res. 70, the McCain resolution, which renews 
our commitment to defeating the terrorists in Iraq and winning the war. 
That is a resolution that we should all support. Congress has the right 
to cut off funds, but I cannot imagine that responsible Members of this 
body would vote for a resolution that would cut off funds and say we 
are not going to give the troops who are there the equipment, training, 
and protection they need to do the job. That would be unthinkable. That 
is one of the resolutions also pending for us to address.
  Losing this war will not make America safer. This is a war that must 
be fought. It must be won, not just for the sake of the Iraqi people. 
It is for the sake of America. It is for the sake of freedom. It is 
wiping out terrorists where they are so they do not harm innocent 
people in America again.
  I hope cooler heads will prevail. I hope this deliberative body that 
has a great history for our country and in the world will see we should 
not be taking the political position. We should not be testing the 
political winds because what we say has consequences. What we say can 
be used as propaganda against our troops who are in harm's way. Most 
certainly, it can be used to embolden those who are training right now 
to attack America.
  I hope, in the end, we will defeat the Reid resolution, that we will 
take up some of the other resolutions, and we will keep in mind that 
what we say and the longer we talk about it, the more dangerous it can 
become for our troops and for the likely success of the mission that is 
before us. We want the Iraqi Government to take the responsibility for 
the safety and security of the Iraqi people. What do Senators think the 
Iraqi Government is going to do to make that happen, if they think 
America's resolve is wavering, if they think we might set a deadline in 
which to leave, if they think we might start a graceful exit before 
they have the ability achieve security?
  We can't let the Iraqi Government think we are going to plan for an 
exit before we have won the war, secured Iraq, kept the terrorists from 
having a training ground and revenue to harm more innocent people in 
the world or we will not be standing for the traditions and the spirit 
and the commitment to freedom that Americans have made throughout the 
generations of our country.
  That is not a legacy I think any Member of the Senate would want to 
leave. I certainly do not want to leave that legacy for my children and 
grandchildren, nor for the children and the next generation of the 
State I represent and love so much, the State of Texas, nor for the 
children and grandchildren of Americans, the country I am serving. I 
hope we will not forget exactly what our legacy will be if we do the 
political thing rather than the right thing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Texas, who is indispensable to the Senate.
  Today we are confronted with a struggle that could very well define 
the world in which our children and their children will live. Many will 
say this statement is hyperbole or politically

[[Page S3160]]

expedient and designed to disguise a troubled policy. I only wish that 
were so.
  Today we are fighting to prevent Iraq and Afghanistan from 
disintegrating into failed states, where that chaos will be exploited 
by those who wish to undermine--and even destroy--mainstream Muslim and 
Western civilization.
  In the past, these terrorists used Afghanistan and other developing 
nations as safe havens from which attacks against Americans were 
planned and executed throughout the world. One hardly needs to be 
reminded of the bombings of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or the 
attack on the USS Cole to see this is true, not to mention the events 
of September 11, 2001.
  What would happen if we were to permit these terrorists, and others 
who wish us ill, to have another such safe haven? Of what would they be 
capable? Just today we have read in the papers of Khalid Shaikh 
Mohammed's confession to many of the world's worst acts of terrorism. 
Remember that from Afghanistan, a country without significant 
infrastructure or resources, these terrorists were able to orchestrate 
the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Just imagine 
what their capabilities would be if they were able to control only a 
fraction of the oil wealth of Iraq. Is that the world in which we want 
our children and our grandchildren to live--a world in which 
uncertainty and fear become a part of everyday life?
  As one prominent Democrat stated before he reversed his position and 
announced his intention to run for President:

        . . . we cannot and will not retreat. We will defend 
     ourselves and defeat the enemies of freedom and progress.

  Were mistakes made in the conflict in Iraq?
  In a word, yes. I am sad to say important errors were made. Perhaps 
one of the greatest occurred over the past 30 years right here in our 
Nation's Capital. Past and present administrations, Congresses, and 
Department of Defense leaders primarily concentrated on training and 
equipping our forces to fight what is called in military circles ``The 
Big War.''
  In such a conflict, large formations of mechanized divisions, corps, 
and armies seek to fight decisive battles on a conventional 
battlefield. This is not to say maintaining such a capability is no 
longer vital to our national security. It remains an absolute 
necessity.
  However, in large part, due to the resolve of many of our military 
leaders not to fight ``another Vietnam,'' for the bulk of our Armed 
Forces, the skills necessary to fight a counterinsurgency had withered 
and atrophied. This is exemplified by the fact that the Army-Marine 
Corps Doctrine for Counterinsurgency had not been updated for 20 years, 
until December of 2006.
  As General Petraeus, our new commander in Iraq, wrote 1 year ago:

       [T]he insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not in 
     truth the wars for which we were best prepared in 2001; 
     however, they are the wars we are fighting and they clearly 
     are the kind of wars we must master.

  Other dire mistakes were made.
  Many of those errors can be directly attributed to the decisions made 
by the Coalition Provisional Authority which originated from or were 
ratified by the senior civilian leadership at the Pentagon at the time. 
This includes the decision to disband the Iraqi Army without providing 
alternative means for the employing and sustaining of its former 
members. These former Iraqi soldiers went on to become the foundation 
of the initial insurgency. We might have been able to prevent that had 
we chosen another route.
  Another mistake was the decision to eliminate the first three levels 
of leadership, not only in Government ministries but hospitals, 
universities, and Government-run corporations. Managers, no matter how 
junior, who were members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Party were 
removed. The result was those who had the managerial experience best 
suited to rebuild Iraq's institutions were arbitrarily dismissed, even 
if they had not played any role in Saddam's atrocities.
  In sum, many of the problems we confront today are as a result of our 
own shortsightedness and the administration's failure to fully and 
comprehensively develop and execute a plan for stabilization of Iraq 
after the fall of the Saddam regime.
  So how do we go forward? We do have options.
  Some, such as the authors and supporters of S.J. Res. 9, argue that 
we should unilaterally bring the bulk of our forces home from Iraq. Yet 
we all know what would happen if that were to occur. Iraq would be a 
failed state offering a safe haven for terrorists, not to mention the 
thousands and thousands of Iraqis who would be killed. Those who make 
this argument forget--or perhaps they do not know--that unlike our war 
in Vietnam, we face an enemy who is religiously committed to bringing 
the fight here to our shores. If the terrorists know we will withdraw 
the bulk of our forces in 120 days, as this legislation calls for, all 
the enemy has to do is husband its resources or ``lie low'' until that 
date. Perhaps the terrorists will launch fewer attacks to lull us into 
a false sense of security that this defeatist strategy is working. 
Then, with the cold calculation for which these terrorists have become 
notorious, they will spring on the Iraqi people before their 
Government's institutions--which were completely destroyed in 2003--can 
mature and fully take over the reins of fighting and defeating this 
insurgency.

  These are not compelling options. At their core these ``solutions'' 
do not have the goal of victory but consist of resignation to an 
inevitable defeat.
  So how do we win? How do we defeat the terrorists and give the Iraqi 
people a fighting chance to claim a destiny of their own, a destiny 
that is based upon peace and the rule of law? The answer is not simple, 
but what great endeavor ever was?
  First, we must learn from our mistakes. Then we must implement a 
strategy that harnesses the tactics and strategies that have defeated 
other insurgents in the past and apply those lessons to the conflict in 
Iraq. That is what our new strategy, called Operation Fard al-Qanun--
which is Arabic for ``enforcing the law''--sets out to achieve.
  So what is this operation's strategic objective? Once again, I 
believe General Petraeus said it best at his confirmation hearing. He 
said:

       [T]he mission . . . will be modified, making security of 
     the population, particularly in Baghdad and in partnership 
     with the Iraqi force, the focus of the military effort.

  I could not agree more. Creating a secure environment is the 
essential task. This is accomplished not just by conducting operations 
to clear an area of insurgents but by maintaining an American/Iraqi 
security force in cleared areas which assists in providing essential 
services such as clean water and power to the local population and 
enforcing the rule of law. This, in turn, creates conditions where the 
Iraqi people can begin to develop a growing economy and where families 
feel safe to send their children to school. As these goals are 
achieved, more and more of the population will desire even greater 
stability and will support and work toward creating Iraqi Government 
institutions and security services that maintain and enhance this new 
security environment.
  How is this strategy different from past endeavors? Unfortunately, in 
the past there were far too few American and capable Iraqi forces 
available to provide adequate security once an area had been cleared 
and, frankly, there are cases where political impediments prevented us 
from providing adequate security. That is why the additional forces we 
are sending to Iraq are so important. It is not more for more's sake 
but to maintain a secure environment for the Iraqi people.
  This does not mean that our forces will be going it alone. Far from 
it. A key principle of the new strategy is to enhance and strengthen 
our efforts to advise and train the Iraqi military and police forces so 
they may eventually take over primary responsibility for the defense of 
their own nation. We must also remember that training was one of the 
major recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Indeed, one of the 
members of my own party, who has authored legislation disagreeing with 
this new strategy--despite voting for the nomination of its 
implementer, General Petraeus--stated that Iraqi forces:

       . . . while they're not fully independently capable of 
     operating, they're excellent and trustworthy and fighting 
     hard with our troops today . . . I would be willing to serve 
     alongside those Iraqi forces.


[[Page S3161]]


  I believe it is also important to add that, as of last week, three of 
the four Iraqi battalions that recently entered Baghdad were at above 
100 percent troop strength. Another vital element is our new commander 
in Iraq, General David Petraeus. I can think of no better choice for 
implementing our new strategy.
  General Petraeus has long been a student of counterinsurgency 
warfare. In the 1980s, when he received his Ph.D. from Princeton, he 
closely studied counterinsurgency operations.
  During the initial race to Baghdad, the General commanded the 101st 
Airborne Division, and he is largely credited with devising and 
implementing a strategy that secured the city of Mosul immediately 
after the initial combat phase.
  Later, when he commanded our effort to train the Iraqi Army, General 
Petraeus implemented the Transition Team concept. A Transition Team is 
composed of a group of advisers, primarily officers and seasoned 
noncommissioned officers, who serve with Iraqi units from those units' 
inception, including basic and advanced training and eventually combat 
operations. This is an important strategy, since experienced U.S. 
soldiers learn firsthand the operational characteristics and 
requirements of Iraqi units and tailor a training program to fit the 
units' needs. It also provides a detailed analysis of the individual 
Iraqi units' combat capabilities. General Petraeus was also one of the 
authors of the updated Army/Marine Corps Field Manual on 
Counterinsurgency which was published in December of last year.
  I do not know of any other officer with the intellect and experience 
necessary to carry out successfully this new strategy and win the war 
in Iraq. He has my confidence and apparently the confidence of most 
everyone in the Senate since 100 percent voted for him and he clearly 
articulated this new strategy. But what he needs is our support and 
time to carry out his new strategy.
  One must also remember that all of the additional forces needed to 
fully implement this new strategy will not be in place until early 
June.
  As the General stated in a recent news conference:

       We are, in any event, still in the early days of this 
     endeavor, an endeavor that will take months, not days or 
     weeks, to fully implement, and one that will have to be 
     sustained to achieve its desired effect. . . . I have been on 
     occasion bemused by people ``Hey, how's it going? Have you 
     won yet?'' And the answer is we've just started. Just the 
     second of five brigades [has arrived]. . . . Our soldiers are 
     resolute. They want to see this succeed, as do their Iraqi 
     counterparts, and that is exactly what we're endeavoring to 
     do.

  So what do we offer him and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
coastguardsmen under his command? We offer guaranteed defeat in the 
form of a joint resolution.
  But with great respect for General Petraeus, I believe we have 
already seen some preliminary success. For example, Richard Engel, an 
NBC News reporter who has lived in Iraq for the past few years covering 
the war, responded just last month about our change in tactics. He 
said:

       Night and day. There's a radically new war plan under way 
     in Baghdad right now. For the past four years, U.S. troops 
     have been on main bases, most of them outside the city 
     center, some of them in Baghdad itself, and then have been 
     effectively commuting to work. Now they live at work, they're 
     living in small forward operating bases. . . . It is a very 
     different strategy. We're seeing foot patrols again that we 
     haven't seen in Baghdad for a long time, more hearts and 
     minds campaign. . . . It's very much a new war. A lot of 
     people say that this feels like '03, that the war is starting 
     again and that this is a new battle plan. The battle plan to 
     end the war in Iraq and finally establish some sort of 
     stability.

  I would also like to address a matter that, more than any other, has 
weighed on my heart over the past few years. That question is, Do we, 
not just as a nation but as a people, have the will to see our 
obligations through? This has always been an important question. But 
now, during an insurgent war, where the side with the greatest will, 
not technological advantage, will generally emerge victorious, it has 
become the essential question.
  So now we must ask ourselves: Do we have the will to see right 
triumph? Do we as Americans believe in making sacrifices for the 
greater good? History provides an answer.

  Almost 230 years ago, the Continental Army began a retreat, or more 
accurately a route, from Brooklyn Heights over the island of Manhattan 
into New Jersey and then across the Delaware River. General Washington 
had fewer than 1,000 troops and was confronted by the greatest Army of 
the day. The Continental's enlistments were up and many soldiers, 
lacking basic supplies and even food, were making plans to go home. For 
all intensive purposes, the American experiment in democracy, where all 
men were to be treated equal, was about to end.
  Then something miraculous happened. A writer named Thomas Paine wrote 
a pamphlet entitled ``Crisis.'' But panic was not his essay's subject. 
He wrote about commitment and faith that freedom would one day be 
victorious. His words still echo today:

       These are the times that try men's souls. The summer 
     soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink 
     from the service of his country; but he that stands it now 
     deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

  Shortly, after the Continental Army heard these words, the morale, 
which had been crushed by the cold winters of New Jersey, was restored 
enough for General Washington to launch the raids on Trenton and 
Princeton, thus saving the young Republic.
  Commitment and faith had been restored--the faith that freedom is 
worth fighting for, that it is worth sacrificing for, and that is what 
we as a Nation must remember now more than ever.
  I see the leaders are on the floor, and I will not take any more 
time, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Utah being his 
usual courteous self.

                          ____________________