[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 116 (Thursday, July 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9606-S9607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Ms. FEINGOLD. Madam President, as I said late last week, it has been 
52 months since military operations began in Iraq. Approximately 3,613 
Americans have died and 25,000 have been wounded. More than 4 million 
Iraqis have fled their homes, and tens of thousands, at a minimum, have 
been killed. We have now been engaged in the war in Iraq longer than we 
were in World War II.
  With the surge well underway, violence in Iraq has reached 
unprecedented levels and American troop fatalities are up 70 percent. 
From all angles, the situation in Iraq is an absolute disaster, and the 
administration's inability or unwillingness to recognize this reality 
is diminishing our international credibility, straining our relations 
with many foreign governments, and causing us to neglect weak and 
unstable regions that could pose threats to our national security.
  The administration's single-minded focus on Iraq is preventing us 
from adequately confronting threats of extremism and terrorism around 
the globe. The declassified NIE released just yesterday confirms that 
al-Qaida remains the most serious threat to the United States and that 
key elements of that threat have been regenerated or even enhanced. The 
administration's policies in Iraq have also resulted in the emergence 
of an al-Qaida affiliate that did not exist before the war--al-Qaida in 
Iraq, or AQI. According to the NIE, al-Qaida's association with this 
group helps it raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives, 
including for attacks against the United States.
  Yet, while this report is further proof that the war in Iraq is a 
distraction from our core goal of fighting those who attacked us on 9/
11, this administration and its supporters are still calling Iraq the 
``central front in the war on terror,'' even though al-Qaida is a 
global threat and AQI is one of a number of actors responsible for 
violence in Iraq's self-sustaining sectarian conflict.
  While our attention has been diverted and our resources squandered in 
Iraq, al-Quaida has protected its safe haven in Pakistan and has 
increased cooperation with regional terrorist groups. The sooner we 
redeploy from Iraq, the sooner we can refocus our efforts and develop a 
wide-ranging, inclusive strategy that would deny al-Qaida these 
advantages.
  I remind my colleagues that last November, our constituents spoke out 
against this war in every way they possibly could. And as the situation 
continues to deteriorate, they have repeated their call--they were 
outside this building last night holding a candlelight vigil, and in 
States around the Nation, to show their support for ending this war and 
to tell President Bush and Senate Republicans to ``stop obstructing an 
end to the war.'' I know my colleagues heard their voices last 
November, and I am hopeful they heard them last night. It almost goes 
without saying that they hear them every time they return home as well.
  But, just like last week and the week before that, at the other end 
of Pennsylvania Avenue, these pervasive calls are ignored as the 
President continues to make it clear that nothing not the voices of his 
citizens, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not 
the concerns of members from his own party--will discourage him from 
pursuing an indefinite and misguided war.
  We can't put all the blame on the White House, however. An 
overwhelming majority of Congress authorized this misguided war, and 
now a far smaller but still determined minority

[[Page S9607]]

is allowing this war to continue, despite the wishes of the American 
people, despite the fact that our military is overstretched, and 
despite the fact that our presence in Iraq has been, according to our 
own State Department, ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and 
extremist activity in neighboring countries . . .''
  It is up to Congress to act because the President will not. It us up 
to us to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to 
ensure our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We 
have that power and responsibility and we must act now.
  That is why I support the amendment offered by Senators Levin and 
Jack Reed--an amendment with binding deadlines for both beginning and 
ending redeployment and the only amendment we are likely to consider 
that would take a strong step toward bringing our involvement in this 
war to a close.
  The Levin-Jack Reed amendment is not as strong as I would have liked, 
but it does require the President to bring home our troops, starting in 
120 days. I am encouraged that this amendment is bipartisan, and while 
I wish it had the support of the entire Senate, the support of Senators 
Smith, Hagel, and Snow is nonetheless an important development.
  I call on other Republicans to follow their lead; there is no time to 
waste. It is not enough to pass something that sounds good but doesn't 
move us toward ending the war. Weak, feel-good amendments may give 
people up here political comfort but that comfort won't last long we 
can fool ourselves, but we can't fool the American people.
  It is a tragic truth that the war in Iraq has become the defining 
aspect of our engagement in this part of the world. Coupled with this 
administration's inconsistent efforts to promote democracy and the rule 
of law overseas, the war has alienated and angered those whose support 
and cooperation we need if we are to prevail against al-Qaida and its 
allies.
  As long as the President's policies continue, Iraq will continue to 
be what the 2006 declassified National Intelligence Estimate called a 
``cause celebre'' for a new generation of terrorists. Meanwhile, al-
Qaida has expanded its relations with dangerous regional terrorist 
groups.
  The newest National Intelligence Estimate indicates that we may now 
be facing the worst-case scenario in that our indefinite military 
presence in Iraq has both allowed al-Qaida to reconstitute itself while 
it has also served as a recruitment tool for a growing and scattered 
global network of al-Qaida affiliates. It is becoming increasing 
difficult for this administration to argue, as it continues to do, that 
our presence in Iraq is doing anything but profoundly undermining our 
national security.
  Instead, we should be directing our attention and resources to 
combating the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates. The 
fight against terrorism is not conventional and requires better 
intelligence, better cooperation with friends and allies, stronger 
regional institutions, and more comprehensive policies designed to 
reverse the conditions that might lead to the creation of safe havens. 
We must prevent these safe havens from being established, including by 
working to settle regional conflicts and ensuring adequate provision of 
economic and development assistance so local populations can reject 
terrorist organizations. We need regional strategies that address the 
capabilities and policies of all affected countries, both bilateral and 
multilateral. We must expand our assistance while ensuring that 
corruption and threats to human rights and political liberties do not 
undermine these efforts.
  By redeploying our troops from Iraq, we can refocus on developing 
these vital strategies. And by freeing up strategic and technical 
capacity, we can better address other priorities that have not received 
adequate attention, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and 
Somalia. We can provide real international leadership to combat other 
pressing enemies such as endemic poverty, HIV/AIDS, and corruption--all 
of which can contribute to the kinds of instability where extremists 
thrive. These global battles can't be won if the war in Iraq continues 
to dominate our foreign policy and indefinitely drain vital security 
resources.
  As I have said before and as I will undoubtedly say again, the 
administration's policies in Iraq are an unmitigated disaster. But we 
can mitigate this disaster, lessen the massive burden imposed on our 
troops, regain our credibility with the international community, and 
make our Nation more secure. We can and must do that by redeploying our 
troops from Iraq. Repairing the damage that has been done to our 
national security will be difficult and time-consuming, and we can 
start today by passing the Levin-Jack Reed amendment.
  There is no reason to wait any longer. Members of this body have 
claimed that in September we will have a clearer sense of whether the 
``surge'' has succeeded and whether our policy needs to change. But we 
already know what that report will tell us. We have heard it from 
foreign policy and military experts and could even read it with our own 
eyes in the Pentagon's first quarterly surge report or the White 
House's Benchmark Assessment Report, which was released last week. The 
surge was intended to create a ``window'' for political progress, but 
significant political progress is still nowhere to be seen. We already 
know there is no military solution to Iraq's problems, so now the 
question is how long are we prepared to wait? How long are we prepared 
to have our young men and women police a civil war where the struggle 
over national identity and the distribution of power has long since 
moved out of the Parliament building and onto the streets? How many 
more brave young Americans will lose a limb or be killed while we tell 
ourselves that another couple months will turn around 4 years of failed 
policies? When are my colleagues on the other side willing to say that 
enough is enough?
  It has been a long night, and we have had some heated exchanges. It 
appears that a minority of the Senate is prepared to prevent a majority 
of the Senate--and the country--from doing what is long overdue: 
putting an end to a war without end. This is not the first time that a 
minority has prevented a majority from acting in this body. Indeed, I 
have been on the other side of a few of those fights. But this is not a 
question of senatorial prerogatives. I am not questioning the right of 
Senators to prevent a vote on the Levin-Jack Reed amendment. I am, 
however, questioning the wisdom of such a move, of allowing this 
terrible mistake to continue for days, weeks, months.
  I will continue working to bring this war to a close. As long as so 
many of my colleagues refuse to listen to the American people, to 
acknowledge that this war is hurting our country and making our Nation 
more vulnerable, we will have more debates and more votes. Sooner or 
later, we will end this war. And the sooner we do so, the sooner we can 
start redeploying our servicemembers from Iraq's civil war and 
refocusing on a global campaign against a ruthless, determined enemy 
whose reach extends far beyond Iraq.

                          ____________________