[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 125 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10533-S10537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, there have been some in the leadership of 
the majority, a few months ago, who declared the war in Iraq was lost. 
There have been others who have been invested in two significant 
debates we have had over withdrawing precipitously without any 
consideration for the consequences. I have steadfastly supported our 
effort in the global war on terror and, in particular, our effort in 
Iraq, cautious to understand we have had difficulties and we have made 
mistakes. But today I rise to ask those who have, in the past, declared 
defeat or withdrawal to consider the alternative should America win.
  Yesterday, in the New York Times, Kenneth Pollack and Michael 
O'Hanlon wrote a significant editorial--neither one an advocate, per 
se, of the war and the surge--that said this is a war we might win. 
News that comes today from the Christian Science Monitor declares a 
precipitous decline in the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers and 
casualties and a tremendous decrease in IEDs.
  On Monday night, the people of Iraq in every city, hamlet, and town 
turned out in the streets, and without a single injury, they celebrated 
the victory of the Iraqi soccer team in the Asian soccer games.
  We must ask the question: What do we say if, in fact, the tide has 
turned and we are winning? I think there may be some who will try and 
redescribe what victory is, and for that purpose, I wish to describe 
and remind everybody of what we already declared victory would be.
  When President Bush asked all of us, and I supported going into Iraq 
to enforce Resolution 1441 of the United Nations with 29 other 
partners, we declared three goals: One, to find the weapons of mass 
destruction and to depose Saddam Hussein; two, to allow the Iraqis the 
chance to hold free elections and write a constitution; and, three, to 
train the Iraqi military so it was capable of defending the people of 
Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein is gone, tried by his people and gone from this 
planet. Weapons of mass destruction--no smoking gun was found, but all 
the components were Scud missiles buried in the sand, elements of sarin 
gas in the Euphrates River, some of the biological mobile laboratories 
we thought were there were found, and 400,000 bodies in 8 mass graves 
near Baghdad in Iraq. So that was accomplished.
  Second, the Iraqis held three elections, wrote a constitution, and 
now meet in a parliamentary form of government. It may not be 
everything we like, but it is their Government and their progress, and 
America gave them the opportunity to do it.
  Now today in Iraq on the ground, Shiites who fought against us have 
joined with us against al-Qaida. Sunnis who fought against us have 
joined us in fighting against al-Qaida. In Ramadi, the streets are 
clear. The people in Baghdad are happy the American soldiers are there 
and afraid American soldiers may leave precipitously.
  We are on the cusp of meeting the third goal. Iraqi troops--it is 
being recognized now--Iraqi battalions have, in some cases--not all, in 
some cases--demonstrated the capability of holding the areas Americans 
have secured. America's soldiers are in the same camps with Sunni, 
Shia, and Kurdish soldiers of the Iraqi military.
  This war is not over, but two-thirds of the goals we established are 
accomplished, and the third goal is within our reach. When we look in 
the next 6 weeks toward September 15--and I don't know what General 
Petraeus is going to say, but I know what the New York Times is saying, 
I know what the Christian Science Monitor is saying, I know what the 
Georgia soldiers I talk with or get e-mails from on the ground are 
saying, I know what the attitude and morale of the American soldiers is 
and the hopes and aspirations of the American people. Today I ask that 
as we get ready to break, as we wait for the report on September 15, we 
need to be prepared for victory, not invested in defeat.
  This has been a tough battle. Some of my friends in Georgia have lost 
their children. They have fought for a dream Americans have fought for 
since this great Republic was founded, and that is the right to self-
determine your future.
  I hope the Government of al-Maliki will accomplish some 
reconciliation. I hope they will accomplish a hydrocarbon deal. I hope 
debaathification can work. But I hope we would not declare failure 
when, in fact, we have the opportunity it looks like to succeed. A lot 
of brave young men and women in America have invested their lives in 
the chance to win a victory, not for ourselves but for mankind, for 
civility, for peace, for democracy, and for all the principles upon 
which this country was founded.
  So I hope for those who have been invested in the possibility that we 
will fail, that they will get equally invested in the probability or 
possibility that we will succeed and that together, as a Congress, we 
can reward those who fought so valiantly and see to it that one more 
democracy is born in the Middle East of this world.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared 
this morning in the Christian Science Monitor and yesterday's article 
of Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack in the New York Times be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S10534]]

           [From the Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 1, 2007]

               U.S. Troop Fatalities in Iraq Drop Sharply

                           (By Gordon Lubold)

       U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq have plummeted from near-
     historic highs just two months ago. The number of deaths 
     attributed to improvised explosive devices is down by more 
     than half. Violence is down in the four most dangerous 
     provinces.
       The decrease is an apparent sign that, by at least one 
     indicator, the surge of American forces is doing something it 
     set out to do: tamp down the violence.
       But even if this positive trend were to continue for the 
     next several months, the larger question remains unanswered: 
     will the reduced levels of violence push Kurdish, Shiite, and 
     Sunni groups to reach political reconciliation so that U.S. 
     troops can withdraw? U.S. military officials are wary.
       ``Success does not hinge on the effectiveness or success 
     solely of the security situation,'' says one senior official 
     in uniform, who requested anonymity, echoing what many 
     military officials have said. ``It really depends on 
     political governance.''
       As a single measure of success or failure in Iraq, the rate 
     of American fatalities has its own limitations. But it does 
     reflect the ability of the US to reduce insurgent-led 
     violence. Two months ago, U.S. fatalities climbed to 128, 
     making May the third deadliest month for US troops in Iraq 
     since the war began in 2003. But since then, as the surge of 
     30,000 new U.S. forces has arrived, fatalities have fallen 
     sharply. At press time, the toll for the month of July stood 
     at 74, a decrease of 42 percent compared with May. That's the 
     lowest fatality rate since last November.
       When the surge was announced earlier this year, critics 
     said adding more troops in one area would simply force 
     insurgents to provoke violence in other areas. But according 
     to an analysis by Pentagon officials, fatalities are down in 
     July in all four of the most violent provinces of Iraq: 
     Baghdad, Anbar, Salahaddin, and Diyala.
       In Baghdad Province, for example, 27 Americans were killed 
     as of July 24, down from 44 in May. In Diyala Province, six 
     Americans were killed as of July 24, a decrease from 19 in 
     May. Sunni-dominated Anbar Province to the west of Baghdad, 
     where violence has been tamped down in part because Sunni 
     sheiks have organized against Sunni extremism there, five 
     American service members were killed as of July 24, down from 
     14 for the month of May. Salahaddin saw the same trend, where 
     12 were killed in May, six in July. The four provinces 
     represent about 37 percent of the Iraqi population but nearly 
     80 percent of the violence that occurs in Iraq.
       The toll from improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, has 
     also decreased considerably in the last two months. As of 
     July 24, 40 Americans had been killed in July, down from 95 
     in May.
       Iraqis are also seeing a decrease in violence. The number 
     of Iraqi security forces and civilian fatalities has declined 
     since May as well, according to icasualties.org, a website 
     that tracks such information. The site reports that there 
     were 1,664 civilians and Iraqi security forces killed in 
     July, down from 1,980 in May, but it notes that no such 
     tallies are completely accurate and are probably much higher.
       The reduction in violence doesn't appear to be the result 
     of summer weather, when the intense heat might discourage 
     insurgent attacks. According to an analysis by the Marine 
     command in Anbar, violence trends upward from a low point in 
     January, when it's coldest, through summer to October for 
     each of the last three years. This year, according to Marine 
     Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, commander of Multi-national Force 
     West, the violence in Anbar has trended downward instead.
       All this may be illustrating what to some is a new reality 
     in Iraq even if much of Washington has yet to acknowledge it, 
     says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings 
     Institution, a Washington-based think tank.
       Mr. O'Hanlon has been critical of the war and has remained 
     skeptical of the current strategy. But on Monday, he 
     coauthored an Op-Ed in The New York Times titled ``A War We 
     Might Just Win.'' In it, O'Hanlon says he is impressed with 
     the improved security situation, the reasonably high morale 
     of US troops, and the increasing competency of Iraqi forces. 
     ``We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in 
     military terms,'' O'Hanlon wrote, along with Brookings 
     colleague Kenneth Pollack. ``As two analysts who have harshly 
     criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of 
     Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential 
     to produce not necessarily `victory' but a sustainable 
     stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.''
       Military officials are heartened by decreases in American 
     fatalities but are reluctant to characterize it as a turning 
     point.
       ``My initial thought is this is what we thought would 
     happen once we got control of the real key areas that are 
     controlled by these terrorists,'' Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the 
     No. 2 American commander in Iraq, said on Thursday. ``It's an 
     initial positive sign, but I would argue I need a bit more 
     time to make an assessment of whether it's a true trend or 
     not.''
       In May, noting the high number of casualties among American 
     forces, General Odierno said it was the result of taking the 
     fight to the enemy, going into places like Diyala and Baquba 
     to fight insurgents, and that he expected over time that the 
     number of casualties would decrease, as it appears to have 
     done now.
       Odierno says he may need more time, but Congress is waiting 
     for an assessment as early as next month. That's when 
     Odierno's boss, Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander 
     in Iraq, is expected to provide a comprehensive report of the 
     security situation in Iraq. Military officials caution that 
     General Petraeus's assessment may not make specific 
     recommendations regarding a possible drawdown of the more 
     than 155,000 US troops currently serving in Iraq.
       ``Petraeus is very, very cautious about how much success he 
     is going to advertise,'' the senior uniformed official says. 
     ``The culminating point is when the hearts and minds finally 
     tip'' in Iraq.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 30, 2007]

                        A War We Just Might Win

            (By Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack)

       Washington.--Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight 
     days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian 
     personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The 
     Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all 
     credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as 
     a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking 
     place.
       Here is the most important thing Americans need to 
     understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at 
     least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly 
     criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of 
     Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential 
     to produce not necessarily ``victory'' but a sustainable 
     stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
       After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice 
     when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In 
     previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry 
     and frustrated--many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were 
     using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in 
     pursuit of an approach that could not work.
       Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us 
     they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David 
     Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real 
     results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to 
     make a real difference.
       Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing 
     the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, 
     creating new political and economic arrangements at the local 
     level and providing basic services--electricity, fuel, clean 
     water and sanitation--to the people. Yet in each place, 
     operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific 
     needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates 
     are down roughly a third since the surge began--though they 
     remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to 
     be done.
       In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding 
     Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a 
     complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a 
     (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an 
     Arab-style living room, here he met with the local Sunni 
     sheiks--all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist 
     groups--who were now competing to secure his friendship.
       In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of 
     the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming 
     back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents 
     were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite 
     officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely 
     happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi 
     Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia 
     even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the 
     Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
       We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. 
     This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni 
     Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both 
     cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis 
     have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man 
     the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover 
     the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was 
     an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the 
     country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the 
     long term remains a major question mark.
       But for now, things look much better than before. American 
     advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi 
     commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The 
     American high command assesses that more than three-quarters 
     of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now 
     reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces 
     remain in Iraq).
       In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in 
     terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army's highly 
     effective Third Infantry Division started out as 
     overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent 
     Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
       In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a 
     few ``jundis'' (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely 
     American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we

[[Page S10535]]

     find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi 
     formations were useless--something that was the rule, not the 
     exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
       The additional American military formations brought in as 
     part of the surge, General Petraeus's determination to hold 
     areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, 
     and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another 
     critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents 
     popping back up after the Americans leave.
       In war, sometimes it's important to pick the right 
     adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major 
     factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the 
     outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other 
     Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against 
     Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
       These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized 
     average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local 
     leaders and seized young women to marry off to their 
     loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months 
     Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the 
     Americans for security and help. The most important and best-
     known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less 
     than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the 
     best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks 
     there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist 
     allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting 
     for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its 
     streets without body armor.
       Another surprise was how well the coalition's new Embedded 
     Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we 
     found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders 
     and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local 
     economy and build new political structures. Although much 
     more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on 
     microloans and small-scale projects was having some success 
     where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
       In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian 
     manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has 
     still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups 
     from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to 
     dozens of military officers who before the war had known 
     little about governance or business but were now ably 
     immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi 
     with a decent life.
       Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress 
     so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the 
     provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For 
     example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by 
     the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, 
     many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police 
     forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt 
     and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords 
     in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces 
     beyond their control.
       In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In 
     particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political 
     front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle 
     and maneuver for position against one another when major 
     steps towards reconciliation--or at least accommodation--are 
     needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we 
     begin to downsize, important communities may not feel 
     committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may 
     splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
       How much longer should American troops keep fighting and 
     dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do 
     their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces 
     in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the 
     reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is 
     enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that 
     Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 
     2008.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we all know and acknowledge that al-Qaida 
and other related terrorist groups are determined to strike at the U.S. 
homeland. But a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would only serve 
to fuel that determination and, as a result, surrender Iraq to al-
Qaida, which would directly threaten the security of the United States 
and its allies.
  Yesterday, we had a visit from Henry Kissinger who warned us that 
such a precipitous withdrawal would be revisiting the nightmare of 
Vietnam, where our withdrawal there created genocide among those who 
had supported us and other innocent Southeast Asians. This time, 
however, al-Qaida would follow us back to America. Al-Qaida would use 
Iraq as a safe haven, as it once had in Afghanistan. Only this time 
with oil revenues, in addition to a safe haven, it would be well 
positioned and financed to launch further enhanced attacks against the 
United States. Yet we continue to hear from the other side calls for 
withdrawal, despite preliminary reports of progress resulting from the 
surge, as my colleague from Georgia has so eloquently explained.
  We continue to hear calls for timelines that would embolden the 
morale of our enemies and dissuade the populace from cooperating with 
U.S. and Iraqi forces, and the latest and most recent development in 
the string of defeatism has come from the House majority whip. This 
past Monday in the Washington Post, he stated that a strongly positive 
report on progress in Iraq by General Petraeus would likely split 
Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a 
timetable to end the war.
  Now it appears some in the Democratic Party leadership are so 
invested in retreat and defeat politically that despite whatever the 
news is coming out of Iraq and regardless of the consequences, they are 
committed to defeat.
  Why, I ask, is the majority focused not on our national security but 
on scoring political points? I guess we should pull out, cede victory 
for the terrorists in Iraq, in order to keep the Democrats united for 
the general elections in 2008.
  What we, the Iraqi people, and all freedom-loving nations face is a 
fundamental threat from barbaric cowards misrepresenting the true 
nature of peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists of mufsidoon, as 
they should be called, are condemned evildoers distorting the Koran. 
They are not jihadists. Jihad is pursuing a moral superiority. These 
people who commit these acts are not insurgents or jihadists. The 
clearer we define the true enemy, the easier it will be to defeat them.
  What we have seen for some time now is encouraging signs this has, in 
fact, happened, coupled with the surge that is showing progress. Sunni 
sheiks in Al Anbar have been working with us to take back their 
neighborhoods and villages, fed up with the mufsidoon al-Qaida 
committing atrocities.
  My colleague referred to the Sunday New York Times article. Two men 
who are strong opponents of the war in Iraq said, referring to al-Qaida 
and other Salafist groups, as well as Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army:

       These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized 
     average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local 
     leaders and seized young women to marry off to their 
     loyalists. The result has been that in the last 6 months, 
     Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the 
     Americans for security and help. The most important and best-
     known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less 
     than 6 months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the 
     best. Today, the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al 
     Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, 
     American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last 
     week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

  I observed the same when my CODEL visited Iraq in early May. The 
authors said ``there is enough good happening on the battlefields of 
Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least 
until 2008.''
  So if two of the war's harshest, most longstanding critics admit we 
are making a difference, why can't the Democrats give victory a chance? 
Why can't they give millions of Iraqis a chance at freedom? Why can't 
they acknowledge the progress being made?
  Pollack and O'Hanlon said that the soldiers and marines know they 
have a superb commander in General Petraeus.

       . . . they are confident in his strategy, they see real 
     results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to 
     make a real difference.

  It is time my colleagues in the other party who claim to support the 
troops actually do so in both words and deeds. Ignoring the progress 
being made by our troops because it does not suit the political ends of 
some Democratic leaders is an egregious outrage. Advocating for a 
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a rallying cry for al-Qaida 
and other mufsidoon all over the world. What are we to say to the 
millions of Iraqis who have sided with us in taking back their country, 
only to see them slaughtered systematically after we leave the job 
before it is finished?
  Our words should inspire our troops and those who are working with 
us. Rest assured our soldiers and marines are listening. A recent 
speech by Marine Corps Commandant Conway underscores the point:

       I sat this week and listened to a United States Senator who 
     criticized the U.S. effort

[[Page S10536]]

     in Iraq as being involved in an Iraqi civil war while 
     ignoring the real fight against terrorism that was taking 
     place in Afghanistan.
       With due respect to the Senator, I would offer that he is 
     wrong on two counts. The fact is that there is no civil war 
     taking place in Iraq by any reasonable metric. There is 
     certainly sectarian strife, but even that is on the declining 
     scale over the past six months.
       Ironically, this strife was brought about and inflamed by 
     the very terrorists some claim do not exist in Iraq. The 
     sectarian strife is a tactic aimed at creating chaos with 
     little risk to the instigator while it ties down coalition 
     forces.

  Yet, Mr. President, the retreat-and-defeat crowd, despite encouraging 
signs the surge is working, despite the fact this new strategy has only 
been in place fully for just a couple of months, and despite the fact 
that the Democrats have failed to offer any constructive alternatives, 
other than the ones that would cede defeat, continue to push down that 
line.
  It is a huge disappointment to me, to others, to those who support 
our troops and the efforts to protect our homeland from the al-Qaida 
attacks that would surely follow a precipitous withdrawal. It is a huge 
disappointment that this debate is not about how we can achieve victory 
but how quickly we can declare defeat. This has become a political 
debate. The focus of our national security has been sidetracked. As I 
have said time and time again, we should debate legislation which 
provides our troops with a clear path to victory, a victory which, 
sadly, many in this body are ready to award to al-Qaida and mufsidoon 
all over the world without ever having given the surge a chance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 7 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will say to my good friend from Missouri 
that was a well-done presentation. I know how important this topic is 
to him because of his family's commitment to our military, and he, like 
many other people in this country, definitely has a vested interest in 
the outcome in Iraq in terms of family members.
  The point I would like to make this morning, to build on this theme, 
is that I passionately believe the outcome in Iraq will not be a 
neutral event in terms of the overall war on terror, that success in 
Iraq will not be confined to Iraq in terms of winning the war on 
terror, and a defeat in Iraq certainly will not be confined to Iraq. It 
will spill over and empower extremists in the region and throughout the 
world.
  The reason I say that is this: Who is the enemy in Iraq? Is this 
really a civil war? Certainly there are aspects of sectarian violence 
and people trying to seize political power through militia groups and 
the use of violence, trying to destroy this democracy and win the day 
to control Iraq. There are Shia and Sunni groups trying to do that. But 
the vast majority of Iraqis want to go a different way. They want to 
live together and try to find some way to reconcile their past 
differences and not resort to the use of the gun. I do believe there is 
some hope this will happen--and not just blind hope but realistic 
progress in Iraq that can be seen if you are willing to look.
  The challenges are real. The Iraqi central government has failed on 
many fronts to reconcile the country politically. But, as my colleagues 
have indicated, the surge, the additional combat power that started in 
February and has been in place now for about 3 or 4 weeks, has made a 
dramatic difference in certain parts of Iraq.
  Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack's article has been often mentioned by 
Republicans, and they have been critics of the war, but I would just 
like to say to them, if they happen to be listening: I appreciate your 
willingness to come back and report progress, and I also understand 
what you are telling us in your article, that we are a long way from 
having it right in Iraq and there are many challenges left. The 
political front has been stagnant, but the military front has moved 
forward in a very substantial way.
  The surge, for me, is not so much that we have moved al-Qaida out of 
Anbar but that the people in Anbar, given a choice, have rejected al-
Qaida. The ability to make that choice was provided by the additional 
combat power coming from the surge. An offensive strategy is now in 
place, and it has replaced a defensive strategy. The old strategy of 
training the Iraqi police and military and hiding behind walls simply 
wasn't working. The new strategy of going out in the communities and 
living with the Iraqi police and army is paying dividends.
  Anbar truly has changed in a phenomenal way, as Senator Bond said. 
You can go to Ramadi now--someplace you couldn't go a few months ago. 
Again, the Iraqi Sunni residents of Anbar tasted al Qaida's lifestyle, 
had an experience in terms of what al-Qaida would impose upon their 
families, and said: No, thank you. And along comes American forces to 
help them reinforce that choice.
  The biggest news in Anbar is that 12,000 people joined the local 
police force in 2007, where there were only 1,000 in 2006. So that 
means when we do leave--and it is all of our goal to withdraw from 
Iraq--the goal should be to withdraw with honor and security, and honor 
means you leave the country without those who helped you fight al-Qaida 
and other extremists getting slaughtered. I don't think we could leave 
that country with much honor if we left in a way that allowed those who 
bravely stepped out and embraced moderation to be killed by the 
extremists. From a security perspective, it is important that we leave 
Iraq in a stable situation and that the problems there do not spill 
over to the other parts of the region and the world at large.
  Now, whom are we fighting? There are sectarian conflicts. There are 
power struggles to regain control of Iraq. That is part of the enemy. 
Al-Qaida is part of the enemy. And al-Qaida is really not limited in 
controlling Iraq. It is not their goal to take over central Baghdad and 
run Iraq; their goal, in my opinion, is to come into Iraq and make sure 
this attempt at moderation and democracy fails.
  Is there a connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and bin Laden and his 
organization? About a week ago, President Bush came to Charleston, SC, 
and spoke at Charleston's Air Force Base. He made a very logical, 
reasoned case that there is a deep connection between al-Qaida in Iraq 
and the bin Laden infrastructure. To those who say that al-Qaida in 
Iraq is really a separate organization with a separate agenda, I think 
you are not understanding who the major players are and what their 
agenda includes.
  No. 1, their agenda is to defeat us in Iraq and drive America out and 
be able to claim to the rest of the world that they beat us. If you 
don't believe me, ask Bin Laden or look at what bin Laden says. Bin 
Laden claimed, ``The Third World war is raging in Iraq.'' Osama Bin 
Laden says, ``The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it 
means your defeat and your disgrace forever.''
  Well, I think he understands the consequences of a victory by al-
Qaida. He also understands the consequences of a defeat by America. The 
question I have is, Do we understand that? Do we understand what would 
happen to this country and all forces of moderation in the Mideast and 
throughout the world if it were perceived that al-Qaida in Iraq was 
able to drive the United States out of that country and leave it to the 
warlords of terrorism?
  Who is al-Qaida in Iraq? The founder of al-Qaida in Iraq was not an 
Iraqi, it was a Jordanian--al-Zarqawi. He was a Jordanian terrorist. 
Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. After joining 
Osama bin Laden, he left Afghanistan, after the fall of the Taliban, 
and went to Iraq. Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined bin 
Laden, pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to follow 
his orders in jihad. Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that 
Zarqawi was the prince of al-Qaida in Iraq and instructed terrorists in 
Iraq to listen to him and obey him. Now, to me, that is a pretty 
serious connection.
  Beyond Zarqawi, who was from Jordan, bin Laden sent an Egyptian, who 
was a member of al-Qaida's international infrastructure, to provide 
support to Zarqawi and leadership. And the President gave a laundry 
list of international terrorists tied to bin Laden who migrated to Iraq 
to build up al-Qaida in Iraq. They have the same agenda. The agenda is 
to defeat moderation where you find it, to try to control as much of 
the Mideast as possible. And their agenda doesn't just include Iraq. 
The Gulf States are next and after that Israel, and always us.

[[Page S10537]]

  Now, that is not what I am saying; that is what they say. So I think 
the President made a very persuasive case that the infrastructure of 
al-Qaida in Iraq is very much tied to the bin Laden organization. If 
you don't believe that, come down and let's have a debate about it.
  Who else is our enemy in Iraq? Iran. This body passed unanimously a 
resolution authored by Senator Lieberman during the Defense 
authorization debate, and part of that resolution was a laundry list of 
activity by Iran, particularly the Quds Force, part of the 
Revolutionary Guard, in terms of trying to kill Americans in Iraq and 
destabilize the efforts of building a democracy in Iraq. On February 
11, 2007, the U.S. military held a briefing in Baghdad at which its 
representatives stated that at least 170 members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces have been killed and at least 620 wounded by weapons tied to 
Iran.
  This resolution which we passed was a damning indictment of Iran's 
involvement in Iraq about training, providing funds, providing 
weaponry, and bringing Hezbollah agents from Lebanon into Iraq to try 
to assist extremist groups whose goal it is to kill Americans and to 
destabilize this effort of democracy.
  Now, why does al-Qaida come to Iraq? I said before that their biggest 
nightmare is a moderate form of government where Sunnis and Shias and 
Kurds and all different groups could live together, accepting their 
differences, where a woman could have a say about her children by being 
able to run for office and vote and have a strong voice in society. 
That is their worst nightmare.
  Whether we should have gone to Iraq or not is a historical debate. We 
have made plenty of mistakes after the fall of Baghdad. But the biggest 
mistake would be not to recognize that Iraq is part of a global 
struggle. There are sectarian conflicts in Iraq; I acknowledge that. 
There has been a major failure of political reconciliation; I 
acknowledge that. The old strategy was not working; I acknowledged that 
2 or 3 years ago. The new strategy is providing dividends in terms of 
defeating al-Qaida in Iraq. The Iraqi people in the Sunni areas have 
turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. That is good news. Political 
reconciliation is occurring at the local provincial level. I hope it 
works its way up.
  Another aspect of Iraq, to me, which is undeniable--and I understand 
the challenges, and I think I see the successes for what they are--is 
that the Iranian Government's involvement in Iraq is major. It is 
substantial. It is designed to break our will. Their efforts include 
killing our troops, and they are there to make sure this experiment in 
democracy fails because Iran's worst nightmare is to have a functioning 
democracy on their border.
  So this is part of a global struggle, and the outcome will create 
momentum one way or the other. I hope the outcome will be a success for 
moderation and a defeat of extremism.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________