[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7469-H7470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           TIME TO LEAVE IRAQ

  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to leave Iraq. 
The President intends to continue his war until he leaves office and 
let the next President clean up his mess. White House advisers debate 
how to buy more time.
  Over 3,600 U.S. troops have been killed. Hundreds, perhaps thousands 
more, will be killed while we wait for this President to end this war. 
Thirty thousand U.S. troops wounded. Will that number double while we 
wait for this President to end his war? Thousands of Iraqi men, women, 
and children dead, $10 billion each month squandered. Are we ready to 
spend $200 billion more?
  On Sunday, the New York Times laid out why, how, and when the U.S. 
should end this war. It pulled no punches about how ugly the aftermath 
might be. It was a hard and honest statement of where we stand right 
now and where we need to go.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress must act. It is time to end this war.

                [From the New York Times, July 8, 2007]

                             The Road Home

       It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any 
     more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly 
     exit.
       Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, 
     waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying 
     to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by 
     invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global 
     opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country 
     afterward.
       At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's 
     government, army, police and economic structures, the United 
     States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. 
     Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, 
     unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had 
     neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued 
     against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some 
     chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
       While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising 
     breakthroughs--after elections, after a constitution, after 
     sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came 
     and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic 
     Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that 
     Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is 
     president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his 
     cause was, it is lost.
       The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable 
     of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score 
     settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave 
     more like partisan militias. Additional military forces 
     poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change 
     anything.
       Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American 
     soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the 
     nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous 
     diversion from the life-and-death struggle against 
     terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, 
     and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise 
     application of American power and principles.
       A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months 
     ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on 
     the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When 
     Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from 
     the war should be at the top of its agenda.
       That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans 
     must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be 
     even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There 
     could be reprisals against those who worked with American 
     forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially 
     destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran 
     and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most 
     important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from 
     which terrorist activity could proliferate.
       The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the 
     United Nations and America's allies must try to mitigate 
     those outcomes--and they may fail. But Americans must be 
     equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq 
     will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious 
     discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and 
     meet some of the big challenges that will arise.


                      the mechanics of withdrawal

       The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of 
     tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out 
     safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to 
     Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. 
     Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to 
     secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are 
     organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The 
     exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on 
     reality and backed by adequate resources.
       The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in 
     the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use 
     bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster 
     and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, 
     but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering

[[Page H7470]]

     part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.
       Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is 
     probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, 
     and the target date set, now.


                      the fight against terrorists

       Despite President Bush's repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no 
     significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave 
     it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.
       This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, 
     where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's 
     leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against 
     terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American 
     troops.
       And it created a new front where the United States will 
     have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local 
     allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by 
     international terrorists. The military will need resources 
     and bases to stanch this self-inflicted wound for the 
     foreseeable future.


                         the question of bases

       The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds 
     to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon 
     could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and 
     its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging 
     points.
       There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving 
     troops in Iraq might make it too easy--and too tempting--to 
     get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that 
     Washington's real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. 
     Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those 
     nations' governments.
       The White House should make this choice after consultation 
     with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose 
     opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The 
     bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage 
     effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in 
     Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.


                             the civil war

       One of Mr. Bush's arguments against withdrawal is that it 
     would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and 
     it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into 
     separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American 
     troops are not going to stop that from happening.
       It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm 
     withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq's political leaders 
     and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could 
     spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national 
     reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused 
     to act on.
       But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic 
     proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should 
     use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its 
     allies and Iraq's neighbors to help achieve a negotiated 
     solution.
       Iraq's leaders--knowing that they can no longer rely on the 
     Americans to guarantee their survival--might be more open to 
     compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with 
     economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis 
     forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion 
     ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to 
     driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.
       The United States military cannot solve the problem. 
     Congress and the White House must lead an international 
     attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must 
     turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and 
     ridiculed as a preface to war.


                            the human crisis

       There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly 
     in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who 
     have been displaced within their country. Without the active 
     cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq--Turkey, 
     Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria--and the help of 
     other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the 
     suffering, massive flows of refugees--some with ethnic and 
     political resentments--could spread Iraq's conflict far 
     beyond Iraq's borders.
       Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting 
     refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with 
     refugees, need more international help. That, of course, 
     means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and 
     should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large 
     share of the costs, but should also lead international 
     efforts, perhaps a donors' conference, to raise money for the 
     refugee crisis.
       Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are 
     new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not 
     participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager 
     to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of 
     humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this 
     administration has never shown. And, however angry they were 
     with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations 
     should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. 
     To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to 
     ignore.
       The United States has the greatest responsibilities, 
     including the admission of many more refugees for permanent 
     resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens 
     of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will--translators, 
     embassy employees, reconstruction workers--whose lives will 
     be in danger because they believed the promises and 
     cooperated with the Americans.


                             the neighbors

       One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive 
     meddling in Iraq by its neighbors--America's friends as well 
     as its adversaries.
       Just as Iran should come under international pressure to 
     allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own 
     independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni 
     powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. 
     Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish 
     territories.
       For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must 
     drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. 
     Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with 
     influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is 
     a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq's 
     borders.
       President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used 
     demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end 
     to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and 
     chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has 
     already happened--the result of this unnecessary invasion and 
     the incompetent management of this war.
       This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush 
     to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist 
     that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as 
     we can manage--with as much effort as possible to stop the 
     chaos from spreading.

                          ____________________