[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 130 (Wednesday, September 5, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10138-H10145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1815
SITUATION IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sires). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone and the statement of our
colleague who just completed his hour and was talking about what our
country can do when we pull together. Over the next hour, I believe
that several Members of the Republican Conference here in the House of
Representatives will come down and share their perspectives gained,
many of them from physically going to Iraq or Afghanistan, or both,
during the recent August district work period when Members were back in
their district and allowed to travel to give firsthand accounts of what
they learned and their meetings with General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker and others, and a real up-to-date report on the situation in
Iraq.
But I do agree with the gentleman in his closing comments that we
must as a Nation take ownership again of certain things not even in a
bipartisan way but in a nonpartisan way because these are America's
problems. They are not Republican or Democratic problems. And frankly,
as much as some people would like to say it or believe it or use it for
political purposes, this is not President Bush's war; this is America's
fight. President Bush and Vice President Cheney will be gone in just a
little over a year. The problems will not go away. The threats will
still be here. The challenges of this generation to answer our
patriotic call to this Nation, to answer our responsibility in
sacrifice and service will continue, I believe, for some time.
I did not go to Iraq in August, but my nephew did. Specialist Jeffrey
Watts is now serving his country as a soldier in Iraq for the next 15
months as part of the 1-181st Field Artillery Brigade. I heard the
gentleman from Minnesota talk about the deployments. What I was
fascinated by when I was with the 1-181st earlier this summer as they
shipped out to Fort Bliss to train to go to Iraq, is how many members
of the 1-181st, and this is a National Guard unit, also deployed with
the 278th from our Tennessee National Guard a year and a half ago and
came back and redeployed with the 1-181st. They didn't have to but did;
and how many vice versa went before, many of them because they are
volunteering to serve their country in harm's way. In harm's way, big
harm's way, because they love the opportunity to serve their country.
They are incredibly selfless patriots of the highest order, and I do
think this House comes together in praise of these valiant Americans
who understand that freedom is not free and that somebody has to stand
between a real threat and our civilian population, and that is what
they are doing.
[[Page H10139]]
General Petraeus will be here next Monday with Ambassador Crocker to
give us an update. Everybody is anticipating that, and you have this
review and that review and these stats and those stats. And even the
Government Accountability Office is heavily involved, as if they
somehow supervise the Pentagon. But I think it is important for us all
to prepare to listen objectively next Monday because I think you are
hearing in a bipartisan way, Members like the gentleman from Washington
State from the Democratic side who recently came back and clearly said
much progress has been made. This Petraeus plan is working.
The guy who understands this insurgency threat more than anyone in
our military and therefore anyone in the world is leading a new
approach in Iraq. And the report will come beginning next week. And if
we are objective, I think we will support his recommendations. If we
are not objective and we have a political bias or an agenda, we may
reject it.
Some of his words in anticipation of next week are already out. He
talks about the extraordinary progress in the Anbar Province. General
Petraeus says that was the result not of military actions certainly
alone, it was the result of really a political shift where the
population, led by the sheikhs of major tribes, decided to reject al
Qaeda and its Taliban-like ideological behavior and the extremist
behavior that they have come to associate with it.
He said: ``That is what brought the level of violence down so
dramatically, because al Qaeda no longer finds a hospitable place in
the Euphrates River valley the way it certainly did in the past. We
have been banging away at al Qaeda for years, but until we could hold
them off with the help of the local population and local volunteers,
those operations were never as meaningful as they have been in recent
months. That is what we are trying to do in other locations in Iraq.
That has also led to a rise in the detainee population over the last 6
months as more al Qaeda operatives have been caught. And while there is
always a concern that they will gain strength, the pool of potential
recruits has actually shrunk. Their sanctuaries have shrunk
considerably so they don't have the ease of locations and movements
where they are safe the way they were before. Clearly there is real
progress being made. War is an ugly thing. It is always an ugly thing.
It is not perfect, but great progress is being made.''
Now, I am going to take the time before I introduce the gentlelady
from Virginia and others that will come to read an opinion from a
German journalist about Iraq that was in the Wall Street Journal last
Monday and then submit it for the Record. Josef Joffee. He says:
``In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between Iraq and
the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week, there is another,
comforting version of the Vietnam analogy that gained currency among
policymakers and pundits. It goes something like this:
``After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon
32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then predicted did not
in fact materialize. The `dominoes' did not fall. The Russians and
Chinese did not take over, and America remained number one in Southeast
Asia and in the world.
``But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same
serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like Vietnam.
``Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold War.
Strategic resources like oil were not at stake and neither were bases.
In the global hierarchy of power, Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and
the decisive battle lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in
Southeast Asia.
``The Middle East, by contrast, was always the `elephant path of
history' as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe Dayan, put it.
Legions of conquerors have marched up and down the Levant, and from
Alexander's Macedonia all of the way to India. Other prominent visitors
were Julius Caesar, Napoleon and the German Wehrmact.
``This is not just ancient history. Today, the great Middle East is a
caldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified to touch. The world's
worst political and religious pathologies, combined with oil and gas,
terrorism and nuclear ambitions.
``In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the greater Middle East is
the central strategic arena of the 21st century, as Europe was in the
20th century. This is where three continents--Europe, Asia and Africa--
are joined. So let's take a moment to think about what would happen
once that last Black Hawk took off from the Baghdad International
Airport.
``Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing its
nuclear arms program undeterred and unhindered. America's cowed Sunni
allies--Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the oil-rich Gulfies--are drawn into the
Khomeinist orbit.
``You might ask: Wouldn't they converge into a mighty anti-Tehran
alliance instead? Think again. The local players have never managed to
establish a regional balance of power; it was always outsiders--first
Britain, then the U.S.--who chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti-
Western intruders like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
``With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces shift to
Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of Terror International.
Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has always labeled as a part of `Great
Syria.' Hezbollah and Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume
their war against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by
adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its anti-Western
alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates, unleashing even more torrents of
refugees and provoking outside intervention, if not partition.
``Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be the first
to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity, or world governance
by committee. For worse than an overbearing, in-your-face America is a
weakened and demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a
controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants revenge for
its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not responsibility.
``China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still happily
counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up for the Olympics, but
watch its next play if the U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq.
The message from Beijing might well read: `Move over America, the
Western Pacific, as you call it, is our lake.'
``Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But strategic
players, those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not. They cannot pacify
the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb, or keep Mr. Putin from wielding
gas pipelines as tools of `persuasion.' When the Europeans did wade
into the fray, as in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S.
Air Force go first.
``Now the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips foolishly,
but it is still the richest player at the global gaming table. In the
Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered tons of political capital, but
then the rest of the world is not exactly making up for the shortfall.
``Nor has the U.S. become a `dispensable nation.' That is the most
remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies from al Qaeda to
Iran--and its rivals from Russia to China--can disrupt and defy, but
they cannot build and lead.
``For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of great
import can be achieved without, let alone against, the United States.
Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend a global
financial system battered by the subprime crisis? Where are the central
banks of Russia and China?
``The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but America is
not. This truth has recently begun to sink in among the major
Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary Clinton who would leave
`residual forces' to fight terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would
stay in Iraq with an as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftist of
them all, John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in
Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the neighborhood.
And no wonder, for it might be one of them who will have to deal with
the bitter aftermath if the U.S. slinks out of Iraq.
``These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve America's
interests on the day after tomorrow.
[[Page H10140]]
Friends and foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the
world's central and most dangerous stage, what will it care about?
``America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the others
will muse: If the police won't stay in the most critical of
neighborhoods, why not break a few windows or just take over? The U.S.
as `Gulliver Unbound' may have stumbled during its `unipolar' moment.
But as giant with feet of clay, it will do worse and so will the rest
of the world.''
[From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 27, 2007]
If Iraq Falls
(By Josef Joffe)
In contrast to President Bush's dark comparison between
Iraq and the bloody aftermath of the Vietnam War last week,
there is another, comforting version of the Vietnam analogy
that's gained currency among policy makers and pundits. It
goes something like this:
After that last helicopter took off from the U.S. embassy
in Saigon 32 years ago, the nasty strategic consequences then
predicted did not in fact materialize. The ``dominoes'' did
not fall, the Russians and Chinese did not take over, and
America remained No. 1 in Southeast Asia and in the world.
But alas, cut-and-run from Iraq will not have the same
serendipitous aftermath, because Iraq is not at all like
Vietnam.
Unlike Iraq, Vietnam was a peripheral arena of the Cold
War. Strategic resources like oil were not at stake, and
neither were bases (OK, Moscow obtained access to Da Nang and
Cam Ranh Bay for a while). In the global hierarchy of power,
Vietnam was a pawn, not a pillar, and the decisive battle
lines at the time were drawn in Europe, not in Southeast
Asia.
The Middle East, by contrast, was always the ``elephant
path of history,'' as Israel's fabled defense minister, Moshe
Dayan, put it. Legions of conquerors have marched up and down
the Levant, and from Alexander's Macedonia all the way to
India. Other prominent visitors were Julius Caesar, Napoleon
and the German Wehrmacht.
This is not just ancient history. Today, the Greater Middle
East is a cauldron even Macbeth's witches would be terrified
to touch. The world's worst political and religious
pathologies combine with oil and gas, terrorism and nuclear
ambitions.
In short, unlike yesterday's Vietnam, the Greater Middle
East (including Turkey) is the central strategic arena of the
21st century, as Europe was in the 20th. This is where three
continents--Europe, Asia, and Africa--are joined. So let's
take a moment to think about what would happen once that last
Blackhawk took off from Baghdad International.
Here is a short list. Iran advances to No. 1, completing
its nuclear-arms program undeterred and unhindered.
America's cowed Sunni allies--Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, the
oil-rich ``Gulfies''--are drawn into the Khomeinist orbit.
You might ask: Wouldn't they converge in a mighty anti-
Tehran alliance instead? Think again. The local players have
never managed to establish a regional balance of power; it
was always outsiders--first Britain, then the U.S.--who
chastened the malfeasants and blocked anti-Western intruders
like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
With the U.S. gone from Iraq, emboldened jihadi forces
shift to Afghanistan and turn it again into a bastion of
Terror International. Syria reclaims Lebanon, which it has
always labeled as a part of ``Great Syria.'' Hezbollah and
Hamas, both funded and equipped by Tehran, resume their war
against Israel. Russia, extruded from the Middle East by
adroit Kissingerian diplomacy in the 1970s, rebuilds its
anti-Western alliances. In Iraq, the war escalates,
unleashing even more torrents of refugees and provoking
outside intervention, if not partition.
Now, let's look beyond the region. The Europeans will be
the first to revise their romantic notions of multipolarity,
or world governance by committee. For worse than an
overbearing, in-your-face America is a weakened and
demoralized one. Shall Vladimir Putin's Russia acquire a
controlling stake? This ruthlessly revisionist power wants
revenge for its post-Gorbachev humiliation, not
responsibility.
China with its fabulous riches? The Middle Kingdom is still
happily counting its currency surpluses as it pretties up its
act for the 2008 Olympics, but watch its next play if the
U.S. quits the highest stakes game in Iraq. The message from
Beijing might well read: ``Move over America, the Western
Pacific, as you call it, is our lake.''
Europe? It is wealthy, populous and well-ordered. But
strategic players those 27 member-states of the E.U. are not.
They cannot pacify the Middle East, stop the Iranian bomb or
keep Mr. Putin from wielding gas pipelines as tools of
``persuasion.'' When the Europeans did wade into the fray, as
in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, they let the U.S. Air Force
go first.
Now to the upside. The U.S. may have spent piles of chips
foolishly, but it is still the richest player at the global
gaming table. In the Bush years, the U.S. may have squandered
tons of political capital, but then the rest of the world is
not exactly making up for the shortfall.
Nor has the U.S. become a ``dispensable nation.'' That is
the most remarkable truth in these trying times. Its enemies
from al Qaeda to Iran--and its rivals from Russia to China--
can disrupt and defy, but they cannot build and lead.
For all the damage to Washington's reputation, nothing of
great import can be achieved without, let alone against, the
U.S. Can Moscow and Beijing bring peace to Palestine? Or mend
a global financial system battered by the subprime crisis?
Where are the central banks of Russia and China?
The Bush presidency will soon be on the way out, but
America is not. This truth has recently begun to sink in
among the major Democratic contenders. Listen to Hillary
Clinton, who would leave ``residual forces'' to fight
terrorism. Or to Barack Obama, who would stay in Iraq with an
as-yet-unspecified force. Even the most leftish of them all,
John Edwards, would keep troops around to stop genocide in
Iraq or to prevent violence from spilling over into the
neighborhood. And no wonder, for it might be one of them who
will have to deal with the bitter aftermath if the U.S.
slinks out of Iraq.
These realists have it right. Withdrawal cannot serve
America's interests on the day after tomorrow. Friends and
foes will ask: If this superpower doesn't care about the
world's central and most dangerous stage--what will it care
about?
America's allies will look for insurance elsewhere. And the
others will muse: If the police won't stay in this most
critical of neighborhoods, why not break a few windows, or
just take over? The U.S. as ``Gulliver Unbound'' may have
stumbled during its ``unipolar'' moment. But as giant with
feet of clay, it will do worse: and so will the rest of the
world.
I think that says it pretty well from a German journalist about our
commitment in Iraq, what the stakes are, what will happen if we are to,
as our Democratic colleague said, precipitously withdraw from Iraq.
We all want our troops home. I want my nephew home, but not until it
is in our national interest for us to draw down troops on the timeline
that secures our liberty and protects our people and our place in the
world. And that is what is at stake.
I want to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Drake), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Tennessee for having this hour this evening where we can
come and tell you what our observations are about Iraq. And also, I
would like to thank his family for the service of his nephew. I know he
is in our thoughts and prayers for his safe return. I would also like
to thank really the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have loved
ones who are serving. I would like to thank the very brave men and
women who are serving around the world for us today.
{time} 1830
They truly understand the threat in the world, and they understand
the consequences if we were to just pull out, and I think this is one
of the most overwhelming things.
When you do make a trip like ours this year, it was my third trip
into Iraq, and this year was my first trip into Afghanistan, but when
you arrive in these Nations, the most overwhelming feeling immediately
is that every single one of the young men and women that you're looking
at serving in the U.S. military have volunteered to serve our Nation,
and that is an incredible feeling.
The first thing that we did on our trip, it was very early August, we
went into a neighborhood north of Baghdad. There was six of us on the
trip, and we had the opportunity to meet with four Iraqi sheiks, two
Sunni and two Shia. Now, like most Americans, I think I was of the
impression that Sunni and Shia would never even speak to each other,
much less work together to rid Iraq, their neighborhood, of the enemy.
Well, they were in that room together and they sat Sunni, Shia, Sunni,
Shia, as they talked to us about what they've done.
And the reason for what they've done, of course, is the incredible
amount of violence that is taking place in Iraq against Iraqi
civilians, executions, torture, and it's brought those sheiks into a
position to join together for their neighborhood, for their region and,
as they told us, for Iraq, that they did what they did for Iraq. They
joined with our military. They worked together for 2\1/2\ months, and
when they were ready, combined with our military, these four sheiks and
their citizens ridded that neighborhood of the enemy in only 4 days'
time. They were so proud of themselves.
[[Page H10141]]
They told us repeatedly how their children could go out and play. Our
military told us that this was the most dangerous street in northern
Baghdad, the most IED attacks of all of Baghdad. They told us that they
can go out and walk to the store now because of what's taken place.
What the incredible change that you're seeing in Iraq right now is
that our military is helping local leaders to develop the capacity to
govern at that very local level, the most important area, and to work
on a regional level to bring that about.
Now, those sheiks are a little bit disappointed in their national
government. I asked them about the Sunni members who had walked out of
the government. Their answer is my favorite quote of the entire trip,
and the quote was, they won't be reelected. I thought that's quick that
they learned that.
They're extremely concerned about the involvement of Iran and Syria.
Our military knows full well of the involvement of those two
governments and weapons that are coming in and help that's being
provided. They need services. Our military brought in the governor of
Baghdad to look at their neighborhood and to see what could be done
differently.
They also were very clear that they want their government to succeed,
and they were very clear in telling us that they need our help and they
want our help.
We also met with the Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister
Barham Shala, who is a Kurd. The Iraqi Government, and we don't ever
talk about this, is set up, when your prime minister is the Shia, your
two deputies, one's a Kurd and one's a Sunni. Your president is a Kurd,
so your vice presidents are Sunni and Shia so that you bring in all
three together to be able to have the involvement of all three sects
within the country. It's not just one person telling you what to do.
Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister expressed a little bit of
disappointment in how far the national government had come. There were
meetings that were taking place even while we were there. He was very
clear, and I thought this was very important, that he said their focus
is to establish the institutions of government so that their government
would continue, regardless of who was in power, and that no one would
be able to just grab power and do something different in Iraq, but that
they form a stable government just like here in the U.S.
When we had a shift in January from Republican control to Democrat
control, there was no change in the way our government functions. Our
courts functioned, and actually, Admiral Fallon, in addressing the
Senate just recently, made the same types of comments, how important it
is that we set up a rule of law, that we protect human rights.
So I was encouraged to hear him talking about that. He did stress
that it was going to take time, and I asked him, because it's been very
important here to us in America and our benchmarks, that there are
pieces of legislation that we want the Iraqi Parliament to pass. And I
asked him if it was true that he actually had the votes to pass that
legislation. His answer surprised me. He said, Oh, yes. He said, I have
75 percent approval for the legislation. I reminded him that in America
we pass major pieces of legislation with one vote.
But he looked at me and said something critically important. He said,
if I pass this legislation with 75 percent, it means I've cut out the
Sunni from the government. They would feel they had no power and they
would feel they had no voice.
Now, just today in the Armed Services Committee, we received the GAO
report on Iraq and the status of these 18 benchmarks. About six of the
benchmarks deal with legislation that we'd like to see passed, and we
failed on that, that that legislation has not passed, as we all know.
But there was another benchmark that was stressed in it, that there be
political involvement of minority parties and minority rights be
protected. Now, we've passed on that benchmark, but I would say to the
gentleman from Tennessee, to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had passed
that legislation against the wishes of an entire group of people, that
we would have failed in meeting the benchmark that minority parties be
included.
He talked to us about Anbar and about how it's been stabilized. Our
trip was due to go there, and we weren't able to because we were
detained here in Washington for that extra day. But he talked to us as
well about the $10 billion that's been appropriated by the Iraq
Parliament for reconstruction efforts. That joins with the 60 countries
that have joined with America in our reconstruction efforts there.
There is $200 million that's been appropriated to use just in Anbar
province, and those contracts are now being let because the security
level there will allow those construction projects to go forward.
I'd also like to add that we do have a policy in Iraq, and that's
called Iraqis First. Whether you're an Iraqi company or you're an Iraqi
civilian, that if you're able to be hired by us, that we want to hire
Iraqi first.
The Deputy Prime Minister was clear that they are a country in
transition, and he did caution us that they would not meet their
benchmarks by September 15, but I would really want us to focus on not
did we meet 18 benchmarks but what are the goals and what are the
objectives and how do we develop a fully functioning Iraqi Government
and how do those benchmarks play into that, how do they make
responsible decisions there like I think they just did in not forcing
legislation that would have cut an entire section of their country out.
I think that's critically important. We all support benchmarks, but
we want those benchmarks to reflect achieving the goals that we've set,
and we want to show where are those positive developments, and people
are frustrated when they don't hear them, when American people don't
hear of the progress that's being made or four sheiks coming together
to stabilize their own region and asking that we not leave them and
that we give them their help.
We did meet with General Petraeus. We met with Ambassador Crocker. We
will receive their report on Monday. I know you have others who are
here to talk. I just wanted to close by talking about the last thing we
did that day.
We met with Iraqi security forces, and they were actually special
ops. They were so impressive that I would have thought I was here in
the U.S. watching special operation forces do a demonstration. Our
military was very clear that they are very easy to train, and the good
news that we haven't heard is that these Iraqi forces are able to train
their new recruits that are coming in. I want you to know they were so
proud of themselves.
Think of the risk to those men who are serving in Iraqi security
forces. In our country, we know our men and women are in harm's way.
That's painful for us as Americans, to have our men and women in harm's
way defending this Nation. But in Iraq right now, anyone who joins the
Iraqi security forces is in harm's way simply for joining, not in the
threat of battle but simply for joining.
So I want to thank you for letting me tell you about them, tell you
about what I saw on our trip to Iraq. It was critical for me to see
Afghanistan for the first time because there's a lot of similarities in
Afghanistan. We're doing the same thing.
We are looking at the local level now. We understand that that's the
way we need to win this fight, but the change that's come about is like
you have seen in Iraq, where local leaders join with us. Remember, they
have to make a choice. Are they with us and their national government
or are they with the Taliban in Afghanistan or with the al Qaeda in
Iraq.
And they have to make the right choice, because if they make the
wrong one, they're dead. And what's the message that we've sent to the
world is that we're going to leave? How do you choose us if we're going
to leave and you would be left there with an enemy? It's critical that
we establish political, economic and security measures in Iraq so that
this nation can function, can establish a government that will take
them into the future and not just short term.
I did ask one question, and your article made me think about it, in
armed services not long ago. We had witnesses come and talk about the
National Intelligence Estimate, and my question to them was what would
be the impact
[[Page H10142]]
on America if we were to leave, if we were to have done everything that
we've done but if we were to leave before that government can govern
itself, secure itself and develop itself economically? What would be
our standing in the world? Would we be a paper tiger? What would our
allies think of us? And would anyone ever trust us in the future?
The answer to me was we haven't studied that issue. Well, I think not
only do we need to study the issue. We need to make sure that Iraq has
made such progress that I've seen in my three trips. We need to make
sure that these people aren't the victims of the violence that will
take place. The Deputy Prime Minister pointed that out to us. He told
us the consequences that would happen if we were to leave. He told us
that Iraq is the heart of the Middle East and that everyone is watching
what we we're doing.
So thank you for letting me join you tonight and thank you for the
service of your nephew.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her service to the
Commonwealth of Virginia and to this great Nation of ours on the Armed
Services Committee and for going and bringing us that unique insight.
As I prepare to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, let me say I
think part of the equation for the Congress in a responsible, objective
way in the days ahead is to remember that this is not all about Iraq.
It is about the bigger picture with the global threat of the jihadists,
the most radical elements of Islam, and the way that they are spreading
their influence around the world outside even of the Middle East. I
think we have to really understand that to know what the stakes are
associated with the precipitous withdrawal or anything that is
perceived to be a retreat.
These are real problems. It's easy to say, oh, George Bush got us
into this war with flawed intelligence. It's also easy to forget that
over half of the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to remove
Saddam Hussein by force and almost half the Democrats in the House of
Representatives voted to remove Saddam Hussein by force based on the
very same knowledge and understanding that the executive branch had
about what the threats were, and we made that decision as Americans.
It is really unfortunate today that decisions and responsibility for
those decisions now end up being peeled off as partisan issues instead
of, we do these things together, we stand together, we stand behind our
troops together, we stand behind their mission together.
We had Members like Ralph Hall of Texas come back and say to a person
the men and women in uniform told him while he was there that we should
stay and finish what we started and not leave until we can successfully
complete this mission. And you say, well, what is that and when will we
know? Objectively, you're getting that report and it's much more
positive than it was, and the stakes for leaving are incredibly high.
If you don't believe the influence of the radical Islamists around
the world, I would encourage you to read Mark Steyn's book, ``America
Alone,'' where he lays out what's happened in Europe and the influence
with the global sharia, which is a call to Islamic law, and the
intimidation and the threat around the world, or even this new book
called ``Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World,''
by J. Miller Burke. He wrote this book exposing the connection between
the Saudi royal family and terrorism through these charities that they
set up and funnel money.
It reminded me of the Oil-for-Food scandal at the United States where
Saddam Hussein corrupted the United Nations.
{time} 1845
All of the corruption that exists through this radical effort,
because this book that lays all this out can't be bought today. It has
vanished from all of the Amazons. It has vanished from the availability
of Barnes & Noble to find the book. What happened to it?
Well, through intimidation and money, they have taken this
information out of circulation so the people can't see these
connections.
They literally tie him, this man, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, to the
charity that he set up to fund bin Laden with Saudi royal family money,
and then when they published the book, it vanished. You can't get it.
You can't go buy it.
Mark Steyn lays out, this is the kind of work that the radical Wahabi
sect, the al Qaeda operatives, are doing in the world. They have
infiltrated and corrupted, and we are like boiling frogs if we deny any
longer how this threat is overtaking the free world. America Alone's
premise is they've already got Europe and frankly Australia is really
the only nation standing with us like they need to.
This is a growing global imminent threat. If we pull out, it will
rapidly deteriorate in the world. Our credibility will be lost for
generations. We may never regain it. Those are the stakes. That's
bigger than Iraq. Iraq is one chapter in this long-term gener-
ational struggle for our freedom. The sooner we realize it, the better
we are.
I went and spoke to kids in schools in August, and they asked the
question about, well, Afghanistan and the Taliban attacked us, but
Saddam Hussein in Iraq didn't attack us. Why did we go there?
The lesson of history is Germany didn't attack us, either. Japan
attacked us. Germany didn't attack us. But did we ignore the threat of
Nazi Germany? No. Our men stormed the beaches of Omaha and liberated
Normandy and Omaha Beach, and liberated Europe, so that our way of life
could be preserved. Sometimes they forget that, but that's American
leadership. This is very, very similar to that.
Are we going to exert it in a world in what this editorial calls the
caldron, you know, of the worst political and religious pathology in
the history of the world in the Middle East? This is the central stage.
We cannot retreat from this without us really, really taking a global
hit.
The next president is going to inherit the responsibility of doing
this, of carrying this forward.
I want to yield to the statesman from Georgia, a physician, a healer,
a man with a great heart but a strong back, also a member of the Armed
Services Committee, Dr. Phil Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, Zach
Wamp, for, first of all, conducting this special order hour, leadership
hour on the Republican side, and for allowing me and my colleague and
great friend from Virginia, Thelma Drake, for being part of that. Doug
Lamborn, the gentleman from Colorado, I think, has joined us.
Mr. Speaker, I was on the trip with Thelma Drake from Virginia when
we visited Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am not going to repeat
everything that she said, but I want my colleagues to know that this
was my fourth trip to Iraq, my first opportunity to go to Afghanistan.
But this was a necessity that I go this fourth time. I think some 40
or 50 Members of the Congress during the so-called August recess spent
5 to 7 days in the Middle East and the combat zone in 120-degree
weather.
Those of us on the Armed Services Committee, I am sure, felt duty
bound to do this, particularly as we approach the report from General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that's going to be delivered to the
House on next Monday, September 10.
I have been four times, but this was the most meaningful visit,
because I came to a realization, really, actually, it emboldened my
feeling that we need to give victory a chance. Again, I want to thank
Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, for the passion that he brings
to this issue. I thought he was just an expert on energy, but he is
also an expert on national defense, more important, the global war on
terror, as he so passionately explains this issue.
I was on the floor last night during some of our special order time,
5-minute speeches and the two sides, the Democratic majority has an
hour and the Republican minority has an hour. I heard one of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a gentleman from Maryland,
talking about losing a soldier, a 22-year-old brave patriot in his
district, and he talked with the mom and was trying to, of course,
console her.
The gentleman said on the floor last night, you know, it was sort of
ironic, the mom of the fallen soldier said, isn't it ironic, I am here
planning my son's
[[Page H10143]]
funeral and the Commander in Chief is planning a wedding.
That's not the kind of commentary that we need on the floor of this
House to suggest that the Commander in Chief doesn't care, that he has
got his head in the sand and that each and every one of these 3,700 or
so KIAs and 18,000 of our best and bravest that have sustained, in some
instances, massive injuries, if you don't think that the Commander in
Chief goes to bed every night with this on his heart, then you are just
flat wrong.
I think the gentleman, on more reflection, would agree with what I am
saying. This President cares. This Commander in Chief cares. He wants
to give victory a chance.
It's not a matter of staying the course and same old same old, the
Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana, the long-serving
distinguished Democrat, 37 years in this body, and Ambassador Baker,
Secretary Baker, served under three Republican Presidents, you have got
two people that made some suggestions. One of the main suggestions that
they made was we need a surge, we need more troops, especially in and
around Baghdad, and those four provinces, where all of the violence,
most of the violence, 95 percent of it, is occurring. This is exactly
what the President responded to.
What did we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle? Oh,
well, you know, too little, too late.
Yet, you know, 3 or 4 years ago it was, well, you're not putting
enough troops in there to do the job, you didn't listen to General
Shinseki, it's a constant pulling the rug out from under the combatant
commanders, and we see 435 people that want to be Commander in Chief.
It just doesn't work that way.
In the Democratic special hour last night, after we talked about our
experience in Iraq and these recent trips, the team on the Democratic
side said, you know, we can't afford to spend this money. We've almost
spent $1 trillion trying to win this global war on terror, and we need
to be spending this money to repair bridges, to give more money to the
gulf coast, to maybe even give more money than a 300 percent increase
in the SCHIP program to cover every man, woman and child from cradle-
to-grave with universal health care.
Even if I were for some of those things, I will tell you this, you
spend that money on those things, and you don't protect our people from
global terrorism, then you will see, in a New York minute, how quick
that money would go down the toilet as these people blow up this
infrastructure, just like they did 9/11, almost 6 years ago now, and
killed 3,300, almost the same number, that we have lost in Iraq and
Afghanistan over a 4-year period. They killed them within a period of
45 minutes.
Mr. WAMP. That reminds me, today, yet another terrorist plot coming
out of Germany, preparing to attack our Air Force base in Germany and
soft targets of just public places in Germany where Americans are known
to hang out was foiled, thankfully. The German authorities were on top
of it.
That is a major, major terrorist attack again. We see this over and
over again, thankfully, you know. God has spared us, our intelligence
is working, we are listening. Because of FISA, we are able to listen to
foreign terrorists talk to each other. We've taken the precautions.
Then I have this theory that they don't want to strike us right now
because they don't want our country to pull back together again and be
resolute against this threat, so that those things, combined, have kept
our country secure and safe at home while we are fighting these
insurgents and these terrorists in the Middle East.
We're going to be fighting them somewhere. If it's not in Iraq, it's
going to be Somalia, Northern Africa. I can go through a list of the
troubling places in the world where we're going to face these kinds of
problems and activities, and there are 20 countries that are at risk
around the world for big-time terrorist actions like the Taliban came
out of Afghanistan, and we can either basically stand against this
threat today or face it globally and more at home tomorrow. That's not
a threat. It's reality. In Germany today it was proven again they are
trying to hit our targets wherever they are.
Mr. GINGREY. I am so glad the gentleman brought that up, because what
he is talking about, and I commend to all my colleagues, read the
article, these were three, in one case, I think, a citizen of Germany,
maybe of Islamic descent, but a German citizen, and not only were they
planning on attacking Frankfurt, where most people fly into when they
go into Western Europe, certainly from this country, but also, and I
know the gentleman is aware of this, their plan was to attack Ramstein
Air Force Base and the Landstuhl European Army Medical Center where
every one of these troops, our troops, that are injured so severely,
and our great physicians on the battlefield are able to save their
lives to get them through Ramstein Air Force Base to that Landstuhl
Army Medical Center there just a few miles away, and that's what they
were going to attack.
Mr. WAMP. The lowest of the low who would attack your wounded and
injured.
Mr. GINGREY. The lowest of the low.
Of course, I know we want to yield to our friend from Colorado, and
we will hear from him in just a second, but as I conclude my remarks, I
just want to say, and Mrs. Thelma Drake, the gentlewoman from Virginia
mentioned this a little earlier, we had a report today in the House
Armed Services Committee, a report that was requested by Congress in
our last emergency supplemental, from the Government Accountability
Office, the GAO, on these benchmarks, and the Comptroller General
talked about the progress. Really, he talked mainly about lack of
progress, and it was ironic that even though several of those
benchmarks, we had made some progress, he pretty much gave the Iraqi
government a failing report card.
I think that is disappointing here, just a matter of a few days prior
to General Petraeus' report.
He even suggested that while General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker
are highly professional and we would get a professional report from
them, we would not get an unbiased report. The only unbiased report was
coming from him and from the Government Accountability Office.
I suggested to him, during that hearing, you know, you might be
unbiased, but your ability to interpret what you see on the ground
certainly militarily may not come even close to General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker. So let's wait for the report, let's give victory a
chance. That's what I want to say to all my colleagues. Let's button
our lips for the rest of this week, and let's see what the report says.
I would suggest that the President is going to listen to General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and I would suggest that yes, indeed,
the Iraqi government is making progress, that they are not making as
fast of progress as we would hope, but we would continue to put
pressure on them, but let's give victory a chance.
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for that commentary, especially the
update on the hearing today from the GAO and Mr. Walker.
I will be a little more pointed to tell you as the ranking member of
the appropriations subcommittee that funds the GAO, and funds Mr.
Walker's organization, that unfortunately many times, whether it is
government spending or oversight in Iraq, a lot of what happens in his
office revolves around him and not us.
{time} 1900
It is all about him, and again today, it's all about him. He's the
only one that somehow can be unbiased, and he's the only one that can
do this. And there's a little kingdom over at the GAO and he's the
king. And we need to remember that and put it in perspective this week
before we hear from the absolute expert on counterinsurgency in modern
world history, David Petraeus, the best we can put in charge. He's the
best we can offer to this situation. And let's listen to him
objectively and not get caught up in an ego matter, frankly, involving
Mr. Walker.
And I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of
our Veterans' Affairs Committee, a relatively new Member, but a very
experienced and seasoned Member, Doug Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, like many of my House colleagues, I
traveled with a Congressional delegation to Iraq during the August
recess, and I
[[Page H10144]]
rise now to speak about the successes that I saw and experienced
firsthand while in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, the members of our armed services are working tirelessly
each day and night in Iraq to rebuild this country and to ensure our
national security. While in Iraq, I had an opportunity in Fallujah to
meet with marines from Colorado Springs who were upbeat about the
progress in Iraq and were certain that their accomplishments during the
surge had produced a truly positive result. They were also equally
concerned that people at home in the United States did not understand
how successful they have been.
After my visit to Iraq, I am pleased to say that I am even more sure
than ever that their mission has not been in vain. They truly are
making a difference for the Iraqi people and for the communities in
which these people live.
During our visit, we met with GEN David Petraeus who had many
positive things to say about the progress that has been made since the
surge began. For instance, he mentioned the elimination of safe havens
for militia forces and al Qaeda, continued progress in Anbar province,
progress in the operation and training of the Iraqi Army and
encouraging signs of tactical successes in Baghdad. I look forward,
like my colleagues here who've just spoken, to reading General
Petraeus' report on the surge with great scrutiny when it is released
this month.
I'm also delighted to hear that some of my Democratic colleagues have
realized and acknowledged that the surge is working. I plan to continue
to work with all of my colleagues, as well as the military and the
administration, to ensure that the sacrifice our brave men and women
are making in Iraq is not abandoned before the mission is completed.
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman, and at this time I want to yield to
the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Armed Services
Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Todd Akin.
Mr. AKIN. It's a pleasure to be able to join our discussion tonight
on the subject of Iraq. I approach the subject this evening from
several perspectives; one, as a father of a marine who is now a captain
who has been in Iraq; also as someone who has visited Iraq a number of
times myself, but particularly, and more recently, as the ranking
Republican on the Oversight Committee of the Armed Services Committee.
That is a committee that we have been hearing now, for quite a number
of weeks, of witnesses, Republicans, Democrats, all kinds of different
positions and people with ideas that are supposedly experts about what
we should be doing in Iraq.
Now, one of the things that has jumped out, after having to sit
through hours and hours and hours of testimony, is a certain pattern.
Every single witness, conservative, liberal, Republican, wacko one way,
strange the other way, anybody, every single one of them, there were
two things that they always said, and that was, the first one was, if
we pull out rapidly, it will be, first of all, a huge blood bath of
Iraqis killing Iraqis. We're talking about millions of people dying,
which will, of course, all be reviewed in all the gory detail on the
media. And second of all, the region will become extremely unstable.
Both of those, regardless of who they were, political party, anything
else, those were the two common themes.
And what emerged after weeks and weeks of listening to all these
experts was, there is no gracious, easy way for us to try and tuck our
tail between our legs and quit. We're like the bear that's going
through the woods. We're more than halfway there.
The most logical, the most common sense, the most economic, the least
loss of life course for us is to proceed forward logically and win this
war. And there is even reason to believe that we can.
And the strategy is becoming more and more obvious as to how that has
to happen. The first basic principle is that our troops are doing a
very good job in Iraq. The second basic principle is that we've fallen
into this sort of belt line, beltway mentality thinking that America's
greatness all came out of Washington, DC and therefore the problems
have to be solved in Baghdad, and that's just wrong. The political
solution in Baghdad is not working properly. Where we are having
success is the very way that America was built 300 years ago, and it's
being built in local communities and local cities, local towns and
various states as they built this great Nation and the same way. That's
what's happening over in Iraq.
We are having very good success on the local level working with local
sheiks, giving them a sense that it's their country, they can shape it,
and what we need to be doing is aggressively giving those local
governments authority and limiting the Baghdad authority to certain
very specific items. We call that federalism in this country, and
that's where we need to be going. We can win this, and it is the most
inexpensive, the lowest loss of life and the very most positive results
we can expect by just using the same principles that we found that
built America. So I think that's where we need to be going.
The Democrats are wrong. You can't pass a constitutional amendment
that says everybody's going to get along with each other. Even if you
put a gun to the head of the Iraqi Baghdad Government, they couldn't do
that. They couldn't succeed in that.
They're wrong in being against the surge. The surge is proving to be
effective. It is helping us to build local governments. And they're
wrong in the sense that everything is lost and we ought to quit. That's
not true, and none of the witnesses suggested that it's wise for us to
pull out precipitously.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me some time, and I appreciate the
comments of my colleagues that understand the importance of this and
understand terrorism.
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman from Missouri and his distinguished
leadership as the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.
Let me say, before introducing the gentleman from Texas, one of the
biggest changes that I see, not just in Iraq, but globally, is that
finally moderate Muslims are standing up against the radicals. We're
seeing that in country, we're seeing that in other parts of the world.
Up until a few months ago when they saw American resolve coming
forward, they literally were so afraid and intimidated and harassed,
and the radicals were seizing the moment.
Now, finally, and let me tell you, because of the sheer numbers, if
we're ever going to really permanently throw this threat back, the
moderate people in Islam have to lead and help us, and that's beginning
to happen.
A gentleman who's been to Iraq six times, Dr. Burgess from Texas,
another physician, a healer, a member of the Commerce Committee with
extraordinary perspective from six separate visits to Iraq in country.
I yield him such time as he may consume, hoping to get the other
gentleman from Texas in at some point in the next 7 minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Indeed, I did take my sixth trip to Iraq in July, a weekend trip. And
believe it or not, it is possible to make a weekend trip to Baghdad.
I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was concerned. The 10 months
prior to my going, we've had just a litany of one bad story after
another come out of Iraq, and I was concerned about what I was going to
find.
The story is a mixed story. I suspect next week when we do hear the
report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, we'll get a mixed
report.
But I've just got to tell you, it was a vastly different condition on
the ground that I saw than what I had been led to believe I would
encounter with reading the stories in the paper.
Now, just over a year ago I was there. There's a lot that's changed
in Iraq. There's a lot that's changed here at home since that year's
time. Concerned about what I would find, and again, made the trip over
a relatively condensed time frame, we left for Baghdad really early in
the morning out of Kuwait City on a C-130.
And Mr. Speaker, you always hear people criticize us on these trips.
They say, well, you just saw what they wanted you to see. They just
trotted out the dog-and-pony show for you and you bought it.
But the reality is you get on a C-130, 3 or 4 or in the morning, it's
already 90,
[[Page H10145]]
95 degrees. You're put in the back of a C-130 with troops being moved
into one theater or another. And they don't pick the guys that happen
to show up at the airport that morning. You go with whoever is going in
or out of the country.
Now, when you're on the plane, it's just too noisy and hot and dark
to talk. But as the plane landed when we got to Baghdad and they bring
the engines down and you can actually hear again, the soldiers that
were around became anxious to talk to me when they found out who I was
and why I was there.
Most of them, it was their second or third rotation. Their
deployments had been extended to 15 months, and most of the guys that
were on that plane wouldn't see home again for almost a year.
Since February, there's been a big change in how they do their job.
They're placed alongside Iraqi soldiers in smaller groups, both in
Baghdad and out in the provinces, and they're no longer attached to
this larger and more protected military base. And clearly, they're
seeing a greater amount of activity and, to a large degree, that
concerned them.
The fellow that was just right across from me I actually spoke with
in some depth, and he'd been reading a book all during this hot plane
ride for 2 hours from Kuwait City into Baghdad.
He obviously voiced a concern. He wondered if the General Officer
Corps even knew what they were up to, even knew what they were doing.
He wondered if they knew what they were up against. He did complain
about the long hours. He complained about the heat. He complained about
being separated from his family.
Mr. Speaker, he'd been reading a book intently while we were on the
plane. And I asked him about this. I said, What book are you reading?
And he said it was a book about philosophy. So I naturally assumed that
at the end of his deployment he'd be coming home to perhaps finish
school, or maybe he had a job waiting for him, and I asked him about
this. And he looked at me very strangely and said, I just signed up for
five more years.
You know, it's that kind of ambiguity, it's that kind of enigma that
confronts you when you're in Iraq. Things just don't add up the way you
think that they might.
Now, we got off that plane and we all went our separate ways. We were
taken into the town of Ramadi. And a year ago, there would have been no
way to go to Ramadi. We visited with the mayor.
And again, as Mr. Akin just alluded to, the good news story coming of
out of Iraq is the building up of those institutions of local
government just like we have here in this country, county governments,
city governments that are doing the really hard work. They're doing
reconciliation at the city level, at the provincial level. If it takes
the central government a while longer to catch up with them, I've got a
lot of hope based on what I saw on the ground.
But what really gives me hope is what I saw in the market in Ramadi.
Look at the faces on these two young guys. We were just out there
walking in the market just in an area that a year ago it had been so
dangerous no one in their right mind would have taken us there.
Let me just show you this other picture that gives you some idea of
the types of thing for sale in the market. Again, it looks like a
typical marketplace anywhere you'd find in the Middle East, Jordan or
Saudi Arabia. A lot of stuff for sale. I don't know where the stuff
comes from, but a lot of stuff for sale. And again, clearly the people
who were there did not look to be particularly stressed or aggrieved.
They looked half curious and happy to see us. In fact, the kids were
starting school in a couple of weeks and would come up to us and ask us
for pens and quarters. Apparently our military had given them a good
deal of coaching on the kinds of things you can get from a codel as it
walks through town.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude here and leave the remaining time to my
friend from Texas. I will say I do believe it is in America's interest
that we finish the job. The next 30 years will look starkly different
if we're successful versus if we're a failure.
I will yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. I'd like to yield our final minute to Mr. Hensarling of
Texas to close.
Mr. HENSARLING. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
the gentleman from Tennessee for leading this hour. I want to thank the
other members of the Republican Study Committee, the House's
conservative caucus, for lending their voice here.
In the remaining time, I just want to make a couple of points, and
that is, we see every night the cost of fighting this war, and it is a
heavy cost. It's a heavy cost in terms of money and, much more
importantly, lives. But we need to again remember the cost of losing
this war and what that could mean and how serious the threat is.
I was home during the August recess, got to spend time not only with
my wife and children, but with my parents. My mother reminded me of
something that she said from time to time, and that is, sometimes life
is full of lousy options. And yes, fighting this war is costly. But
losing this war could be even costlier if Iraq becomes what Afghanistan
once was, under the Taliban, a breeding ground, a training ground for
terrorists that are bent on hurting our country.
And we have to remember these are people who have said they have the
right to kill 4 million Americans. Two million of them are children and
two of those 2 million are mine. We have to remember what the cost of
defeat is.
So we finally have signs for cautious optimism. We all need to have
an open mind when the report comes in.
____________________