[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8885-S8887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IRAQ POLICY

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate being recognized. Before my 
good friend, Senator Lieberman, departs the floor, I will make one 
observation about him that I think needs to be said. This winning/
losing is a big part of wars; it is a big part of politics. Everybody 
wants to win, and people are afraid to lose. But I have found in life 
there are some things that are worth fighting for and willing to lose 
your job over, and to me the policies in Iraq fall into that category 
because it is much more important in my election that we get it right 
in Iraq, and from Senator Lieberman's point of view--I don't think I 
have seen in modern politics anyone more committed to their beliefs 
than Senator Lieberman when it comes to a foreign policy issue like 
Iraq. We all know the story of his last election, how he basically lost 
a primary because he refused to give in to the forces on the left when 
it came to the war on terror policies, particularly

[[Page S8886]]

Iraq. He literally risked losing his job, lost the primary, and in the 
end prevailed. I think he prevailed because the good people of 
Connecticut saw in Senator Lieberman a man committed to his ideas, and 
his ideas he was committed to were bigger than himself. They may not 
have agreed with Senator Lieberman about his policies on Iraq, but they 
sure admired what they saw in the man, and that is someone who was 
clearly putting the country's interests ahead of their own. There is 
not enough of that. The only group I can say with certainty that is 
doing the same thing is the men and women in Iraq.
  On the Fourth of July this year, last week, I was in Iraq, in Baghdad 
for my sixth or seventh visit. This was a special visit. I got to be on 
the ground in Iraq on the Fourth of July, our Independence Day, and be 
part of a ceremony put on by General Petraeus's staff where he had 580-
plus people reenlist. It was the largest reenlistment ceremony in a war 
zone in history, General Petraeus said. Right after the reenlistment 
ceremony, we had 160-plus American soldiers who became naturalized 
citizens. It was something to behold. To be in that former Saddam 
palace and be around those brave young men and women who are signing up 
to do it in Iraq yet again and who are becoming American citizens, 
literally risking their lives to do so, was inspiring.
  This debate we are about to enter into is not about anyone's 
patriotism. My colleagues here, we are friends politically one day and 
we are on the other side the next. That is the nature of politics. It 
is never about respect for the person. I do have respect for my 
colleagues, and I hope the same is said of me. It is about our 
judgment. When I question your judgment and you question mine, that is 
part of the political process. Our judgments need to be tested. The 
decision we make now affects many people. It affects the long-term 
future of our country. It affects the soldiers in harm's way. Our 
judgment will be tested by the next election, and it will be tested by 
the eyes of history.
  So here is what I believe we need to do in terms of Iraq policy for 
the immediate future. We need to listen very closely to what is being 
said in theater by our generals and by our enemy. Mr. Zawahiri, the 
second in command of al-Qaida, is not in Iraq, but he issued a 
statement--I think it was last Thursday--it was about an hour-long 
statement, and it was basically a call to not lose hope for al-Qaida in 
Iraq. He was acknowledging that you are under strain and stress, that 
you are really being pounded, but hang in there because your cause is 
great, and he encouraged everyone who is sympathetic to al-Qaida to run 
to Iraq now to beat us because our ideas are just abhorrent to their 
way of life.
  The idea of being tolerant to different religions and views of 
religion is an absolute mortal sin in the eyes of al-Qaida. The idea of 
a woman having a say about her child is something they are just not 
going to have any part of. So I thought it was odd that he would make 
this hour-long call for reinforcements. Why was he doing that?
  The reason he chose to make that statement is because the new 
strategy being employed now in Iraq is working against al-Qaida. I 
don't want to overstate it. The main reason al-Qaida is losing ground 
in Iraq has more to do about them than us. Al-Qaida dramatically 
overplayed their hand. Wherever they occupied a region in the Sunni 
part of Iraq, they tremendously overplayed their hand. During this 
debate, I will give some illustrations of some of the brutal, vicious 
things they did to folks living in Iraq once they were under al-Qaida 
control, and the Sunnis in Iraq basically are fed up with al-Qaida. 
They have had a taste of what al-Qaida offers them, and they have said 
no thanks. They have rejected al-Qaida's view of how to live one's life 
and how to raise one's children.
  Lucky for us the President made a change in strategy--which should 
have happened years ago--where we are putting additional combat 
capability into the Iraqi theater. This rejection of al-Qaida by the 
Sunni leadership and the Sunni population came at a time where we have 
additional combat capability to reinforce that rejection. No matter 
what you think about the surge, it is undeniable that there have been 
new alliances formed between Sunni Iraqis and coalition forces in areas 
previously controlled by al-Qaida; and al-Qaida, as Senator Lieberman 
said, is literally on the run, but they are still engaging in suicide 
bombing attacks and trying to create as much carnage as possible in 
Iraq. Where they used to exist in Anbar, they exist no longer in any 
force. They are isolated now. Anbar, the province dominated by the 
Sunni Iraqis, is a transformed region in terms of al-Qaida operations. 
The break of the sheik from the al-Qaida leadership and joining with 
the coalition forces has been a transforming event.
  What can al-Qaida do? They moved to Diyala when the population sided 
with us, and their safe haven was denied. They went to the Diyala 
Province. We are doing the same thing there as we did in Anbar: making 
alliances with local Sunni leaders and some Shia. The big loser is al-
Qaida. That is why last week Zawahiri made a call to his brothers in 
arms: Don't leave the fight; too much is at risk; hang in there, we 
will send reinforcements if we can.
  He made this observation--I will get the quote later in the debate. 
He said the winds were blowing in our favor in Washington.
  Now, one of the highest ranking al-Qaida leaders in the world was 
trying to inspire his troops by saying: No matter how much you are 
losing ground in Iraq, help may be coming from Washington. The question 
for this body is, do we want to be the cavalry for al-Qaida? If things 
are left the way they are now, and we gave General Petraeus the time 
and the resources and our total commitment, there is no doubt in my 
mind that, militarily, we can destroy al-Qaida in Iraq. Why? Because 
the Iraqi people, particularly the Sunnis, have had a taste of that 
lifestyle, and they have said no. All they need is additional capacity 
to defeat al-Qaida. That additional capacity has been provided by the 
surge. The additional military capability that exists now has made a 
world of difference. The strategy is fundamentally different.
  Before, for almost 4 years, we had been behind walls trying to train 
the Iraqi Army and police, and getting in firefights and coming back 
when it was over. General Petraeus, with additional military personnel, 
has created joint security stations all over neighborhoods where we are 
living with the Iraqi Army and police, training them day in and day 
out. We are sleeping with them in terms of staying overnight, and we 
are stakeholders of that area. Not only are we helping clear the area, 
we are holding that area and we are having more combat capability. The 
surge provides that for every combat troop available to do operations 
before the surge, we have an additional soldier now. That has allowed 
us to go into areas that we previously could not go into to clear, 
hold, stay, and live with the Iraqi Army and police force and train 
them day in and day out. It is truly working.
  It is my hope that as we get into this debate we will understand that 
if we go back to the old strategy of withdrawing behind walls, the 
alliances that have been formed between the Sunni leadership in Iraq 
and the coalition forces and the central government will be destroyed. 
We have put tanks around Sunni sheiks' homes. We have created joint 
security stations in neighborhoods that have previously been occupied 
by al-Qaida. It is working. If we withdraw, all of those people who 
formed these alliances will be at risk. I think al-Qaida will emerge 
again stronger.
  One thing is clear to me. The old strategy of just training and 
staying behind walls failed. The new strategy of getting into the 
fight, getting out into the neighborhoods, holding territory with 
additional combat capability, and forming new transforming alliances is 
working.

  Senator Levin, a dear friend, wants to say we are going to leave in 
March of 2008, or 120 days from now--I cannot remember the wording of 
the amendment. Basically, it is a statement by the Congress that we are 
going to undo the surge, the surge comes to an end, we begin to leave. 
We will leave a force behind that will do a couple things--train the 
Iraqi Army and police force. We tried that for 4 years. Training during 
a war is a little different than training when you are not at war. We 
train our soldiers at home, but they

[[Page S8887]]

are not in a wartime situation while they are being trained. The people 
in Iraq are being trained and fighting at the same time. They need more 
than training, they need combat capability that is nonexistent on their 
part.
  That is a democracy that is less than 4 years old. Their constitution 
is less than 18 months old. The Iraqi Army and the police force, 4 
years ago, was there to support the dictator, not democracy. So if you 
expect, from the ashes of the dictatorship, a functioning democracy in 
4 years, I think you are sadly mistaken. It took us 11 years to write 
our own Constitution.
  Why am I hopeful that we can still win in Iraq? No. 1, there is 
evidence with the new strategy that we can defeat and destroy al-Qaida 
in Iraq. No. 2, every time an Iraqi soldier is killed or a policeman is 
murdered, someone takes their place. Every time a judge is 
assassinated, somebody else comes along and says, ``I'll be a judge.'' 
What more can you ask? We are losing troops, and it is heartbreaking. 
The enemy that we are fighting understands that Americans don't like 
the taste of war--and that is an asset, not a liability. We are not a 
warring people. It is not our nature as a people to go to other places 
and take land from people and dominate their life. It is our nature to 
allow people to chart their own destiny and to be partners 
economically, while the enemy wants no part of that.
  So what I hope we will do is take these amendments that will come to 
the floor and ask ourselves one simple question: If this amendment 
passes, what affect does it have on our military commanders to execute 
this new strategy that is clearly working? If this amendment passes, 
how does it affect al-Qaida in Iraq and throughout the world? What 
affect would it have on the voices of moderation that are giving their 
own lives to change their own country in Iraq? If this amendment 
passes, how does it affect Iran?
  The one thing I learned from this last trip is that al-Qaida 
overplayed their hand, and we are taking advantage of it. Iran is 
trying to destabilize Iraq now more than ever. Don't mistake these new 
alliances between coalition forces and Sunni Iraqis to be a political 
reconciliation. The bad news from my trip is that the Iraqi Government 
is paralyzed, the political leadership in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd--
are unable to get their act together at this point. New elections would 
be good for the Sunnis.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We will talk more about this. The good news is, the surge 
is al-Qaida's worst nightmare. They have been rejected by the Sunnis in 
Iraq, and if we stay on them, we can destroy al-Qaida in Iraq. The bad 
news is, the current political infrastructure in Iraq is incapable of 
making the hard decisions for the moment. We have to think of new ways 
to push them.
  There is much more to follow.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.

                          ____________________