[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.
____________________