[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 116 (Thursday, July 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H8177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        ON IRAQ, WE NEED LEADERSHIP, NOT INEFFECTIVE COMPROMISE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Americans are aching for our leadership to 
end the war in Iraq. Instead, they find the President and his enablers 
in the House and Senate doing everything they can to block legislation 
that would require him to bring the troops home by a date certain. Each 
day seems to bring some new proposal that purports to be progress.
  Upon examination, however, they leave the President free to pursue 
his discredited policies and serve his diversionary tactics by 
politicians searching for cover. One proposal calls for the President 
to submit a plan by mid-October to narrow the use of U.S. troops in 
Iraq to fighting terrorists and securing borders and U.S. interests. It 
won't bring home a single American serviceman or woman.
  Another proposal seeks to ``change the mission'' of American forces, 
but doesn't guarantee when or even if their redeployment will begin. 
Supporters of ``changing the mission'' claim it would result in troop 
reductions, but they offer no evidence of that. Americans will remain 
the targets of violence, and U.S. policy will continue to sow 
resentment in the Muslim world. In my opinion, ``changing the mission'' 
is the war supporters' latest excuse to avoid decisive action to bring 
the war to a conclusion.
  This is not the leadership the American people expect and that our 
national security demands. The failure of the President's surge 
strategy means he has lost the ability to shape events in Iraq in a 
positive direction. Only by redeploying our forces from Iraq can we 
rebuild our depleted military, restore our global reputation and 
redirect resources to fight al Qaeda.
  Just last week, the National Counterterrorism Center reported that al 
Qaeda has regrouped in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, enabled 
by the President's diversion of resources to Iraq.
  I opposed the Iraq war from the start and take no comfort in the fact 
that many of my most ominous predictions have proven true. In a 
September 6, 2002, op-ed in the Portland Press Herald, I predicted that 
the war would be fought ``in city streets filled with civilians, making 
precision bombs useless and casualties high. It will cost billions to 
wage the war and billions more to rebuild.''
  America has suffered nearly 30,000 casualties, including more than 
3,600 combat deaths. The war has cost half a trillion dollars, 
resulting in huge deficits that will burden our children's future.
  On October 8, 2002, during the House debate on the war resolution, I 
said, ``If the U.S. acts unilaterally or with just a few other nations, 
there is a far higher risk of fueling resentment in Arab and Muslim 
nations and swelling the ranks of the anti-U.S. terrorists.'' 
Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened.
  I voted against the war and have been an outspoken critic of the case 
made to justify it, the mismanagement of the occupation and the failure 
to hold the administration accountable for its so many mistakes.
  More than 18 months ago, I called for a deadline to redeploy our 
forces. A firm deadline was, and is, the best way to end the U.S. 
involvement in Iraq and force the Iraqis to assume responsibility for 
their own security. As former Maine Senator George Mitchell 
demonstrated in his Northern Ireland diplomacy, a firm deadline can be 
a very effective way to get parties in conflict to compromise their 
differences.
  Nothing but the force of law will move President Bush to alter his 
stay-the-course strategy. Nonbinding resolutions are not sufficient to 
compel a real change in policy and get us out of Iraq. This President 
is stubbornly determined to delay the inevitable at the cost of 
additional precious American lives. More than 600 of our troops have 
died since the surge began.
  The other costs include greater hatred of the U.S. in the Islamic 
world, more terrorists inspired by that hatred and, with our Armed 
Forces stretched to the breaking point, great insecurity for our 
Nation.
  Unless Members of Congress who supported President Bush's war policy 
steadfastly for 5 years stop looking for cover and do the right thing, 
the President will prevail and our troops will remain in Iraq.
  Our Armed Forces have done all that we asked of them and have 
performed their mission with great skill and courage. President Bush 
will keep our troops in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war until 
Congress sets binding dates for their redeployment. That action 
represents the leadership needed to bring our troops safely home.

                          ____________________