[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 131 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11134-S11136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we approach the sixth anniversary of
September 11, 2001, we are reminded of the consequences of ignoring the
threat al-Qaida and other ``mufsidoon'' terrorists pose to our Nation.
Al-Qaida and radical extremists declared war, or ``Hirabah,'' on this
Nation in the early 1990s, and not until 2001 did we finally take that
threat seriously. While some in our own country refuse to believe this
reality, that terrorists--Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri--agree
that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, our entire
intelligence community testified in open session before the Senate
Intelligence Committee last January that to retreat from Iraq
prematurely on a political timetable would invite disaster. They
testified that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces would lead
to chaos, regional sectarian conflict, Shias and Sunnis killing each
other. It would create a safe haven from which al-Qaida could launch
further and much more robust attacks on America, and it could lead to
the possible deployment of troops, this time not to a fledgling
democracy but to prevent the spread of a radical Islamic Caliphate,
with a capital in Baghdad and borders reaching from Spain to Indonesia.
A precipitous withdrawal would also send a message to the enemies of
freedom all over the world that the American people lack the resolve to
win; that while our brave military cannot be defeated, politicians in
Washington can; that when the going gets tough, America gets going--
home.
Next week, General Petraeus will deliver a progress report on the new
strategy in Iraq. I expect this report to show that finally we are
seeing real progress in the security situation in several key areas.
This issue should not be a political one, but unfortunately there are
those who are politicizing our fight there. This battle is too
important to be used by those who want to declare defeat in Iraq for
their own short-term political gains in 2008, claims such as, ``the war
is lost,'' and claims that the success of the surge ``misses the
point'' are troubling at best and dangerous at the worst.
Sadly, there are some in this body who are vested politically in
defeat. I find it disappointing that some in Congress would now say
they will refuse even to believe General Petraeus, despite the fact
Democrats and Republicans unanimously approved his appointment in
February.
General Petraeus takes his responsibility for our troops on the front
line seriously. He is highly respected, has an outstanding military
career, and should be listened to. I am confident he will deliver a
report based on facts on the ground and not political conditions at
home.
I hope more of my colleagues will listen to our military leaders when
they deliver Iraq's progress report. The worst case scenario would be
for a majority in Congress to ignore our military leaders and continue
to demand timetables, withdrawal dates, and attempts to control troop
movements. Military decisions must be made by our military commanders
on the ground, not micromanaged by Congress in our wonderful air-
conditioned hall, thousands of miles away.
We have seen what has happened in the past when politicians have
tried to run a war--from Vietnam to the Iranian hostage crisis.
On the political front, I agree that Prime Minister Maliki is not
getting the job done, at least not getting the job done on the
timetable that we have artificially set, but that much more work needs
to be done. However, as we have seen for months now, progress is
occurring from the bottom up at the local level. Our military, our
leaders, and our troops in the field tell us that they are being
successful. They are making progress. This is no time to quit.
The Al Anbar Province, where I and several Intelligence Committee
members visited a few months ago, has been demonstrating tremendous
signs of progress, even back then. This was the area controlled by al-
Qaida just a year ago, where al-Qaida said they were going to establish
the headquarters of their evil empire, the Caliphate.
In fact, today, General Jim Jones will be releasing his report that
reached the same conclusion I did after my visit. You saw different
headlines in the paper today about that report--not surprising. They
wanted to focus on other sites. But today's Washington Post reported:
U.S. and Iraqi alliances with Sunni tribal forces in Anbar
province have produced ``real and encouraging'' military
progress and intelligence cooperation, and there are
promising signs they can be replicated elsewhere.
It is here, where local tribal leaders and sheiks are cooperating
with American and Iraqi Army commanders to take their neighborhoods
back from al-Qaida. As a result, we have seen a decrease in sectarian
violence, an increase in weapons cache discoveries, and some relative
stability.
This is a classic example of how General Petraeus's counterinsurgency
strategy, or COIN strategy, is working.
We should have had this policy 2 or 3 years ago. But General Petraeus
has written a book, the Army and Marine field manual. When he talks
about dealing with the counterinsurgency, you go in, you clear, you
hold, you work with local forces, and you help
[[Page S11135]]
them rebuild. Show them that there is progress that can come when they
cooperate with those of us who are trying to prevent violence and
terrorism from taking over their country.
When we were there, the marines in Ramadi had just finished
rebuilding the Blue Mosque, the sacred point for Sunnis in Al Anbar,
and they are using that. We are working with them.
Our military is beginning to replicate these successful lessons in
other parts of Iraq. Sure progress is slow, but progress is real. With
a new counterinsurgency strategy in place, our military shows the
momentum going our way, and with this momentum it is clearly the wrong
time to cut the legs out from under them with a new strategy. We are
witnessing the increasing likelihood that our troops can find success
and return home victorious. Even previous critics such as the Brookings
Institution's O'Hanlon and Pollack, writing in the New York Times, said
this is ``a war we just might win.'' But let me be very clear about one
thing.
Our U.S. national security interest is seeing relative peace and
stability established and maintained in Iraq for the short and
intermediate term because only by assuring that stability, and our
coalition forces working with Iraqi security forces, can we ensure we
will avoid the genocide among Shias and Sunni, the opening of Iraq to a
safe haven for al-Qaida and its related terrorist elements, and the
likelihood of a regionwide sectarian war, bringing in other countries
in the region, creating havoc, chaos, threatening Israel, cutting off
oil supplies, and having an international crisis.
Long term, we have an interest in seeing real reconciliation and
political accommodation accomplished by the elected officials of the
Iraqi Government. Iraqis are going to have to make those decisions for
themselves--who does it and how they do it--but we have to realize that
before you can have political compromise and success, you have to have
stability.
Secondly, political reconciliation takes time. It took a long time to
put the United States of America together. If you read, as I hope you
have, the book about Lincoln's Presidency, ``A Team of Rivals,'' you
see even in 1860-1864, we were still fighting those battles in a war at
the same time, but Abraham Lincoln persevered and we came through.
So not only as a policymaker but as a father concerned about our
future generations, I understand the tremendous sacrifice our troops
have made in support of a policy in Iraq. Our troops on the ground have
told me, in many different ways, they understand they are making
progress. They understand they are making these sacrifices; they are
willing to do this for the good of our country. One particular quote
sticks in my mind when they were first told about the possibility that
Congress would set arbitrary time limits for withdrawal. Their response
was: We have made far too many contributions and too many sacrifices to
see it all be for naught.
This coming from troops on the ground who have seen their colleagues
shot up and sent the belongings of lost comrades back home. They made a
contribution to the peace and security of the United States, and they
do not want us pulling the rug out from under them.
Let's remain committed to seeing the job done to protect this country
from the radical and extremist attacks of al-Qaida and others. Our
Nation's security, our credibility in the world, the freedom of
millions of Iraqis and many other people threatened by this kind of
terrorist attempt to establish a caliphate are depending upon us.
I urge my colleagues to listen carefully and accept the
recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, two men of
unquestioned integrity who will be presenting the situation on the
ground, not as we view it on TV, not as some mischaracterize it but
from the people who have the responsibility for our missions, our
vitally important missions, important not only for Iraq and the Middle
East but to our own national security.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to follow on my distinguished
colleague's remarks regarding the situation in Iraq.
I had the opportunity to visit there a week ago today. I went to Iraq
because I wanted to see for myself, on the ground, the conditions there
in advance of General Petraeus's and Ambassador Crocker's report. I am
happy to report I believe what I saw was significant military progress.
My first stop on the visit was in Tikrit. I got a full briefing there
of the conditions in this area, which was Saddam Hussein's birthplace,
a place that was well known as a place of a lot of al-Qaida and Sunni
insurgent activity.
This area was under control. This area was moving in the right
direction. Significant progress has been made in pacifying and bringing
Tikrit to a better situation.
I had a very interesting visit then to Patrol Base Murray. Patrol
Base Murray is about 12 to 14 kilometers south of Baghdad by the Tigris
River. It is an area that was totally controlled by al-Qaida a few
weeks ago. Our brave men and women in uniform moved in as the last
brigade of the surge. See, the surge began in the middle of February, I
guess, but it did not conclude until the last brigade reported for
duty, and that was in early June, late May. This brigade, the Stryker
force, moved into this area under very difficult circumstances, and
they have had a battle on their hands. But their commanders reported to
us that under the most difficult of circumstances, they have made
incredible progress, and that area is beginning to turn and turn
dramatically. They are working with the locals. I spoke with an Iraqi
gentleman who is cooperating and working with our forces there in
trying to bring a normalcy of life to people who live in this part of
Iraq and is making progress. It is working not without some losses, not
without the grief of losing one of our valued soldiers and many
casualties, but at the same time progress has been made.
Under the most difficult of circumstances and intense heat, their
morale is incredibly high. The fact is that by all measures, this is a
successful outcome to this particular aspect of our surge. The surge is
doing precisely what it was intended to do, to clear and sustain and
work with the locals as partners. All of those things seem to be
working as intended, as General Petraeus laid out.
I had the opportunity to spend some time with General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker to hear their assessment of the situation and hear
some indication of what their report might yield. While we certainly
need to allow them to speak for themselves when they come, I did get
the definitive impression that the metric they utilized to sense and
see whether, in fact, progress is being made, all seem to be moving in
the right direction--not evenly, not without setbacks, but certainly
significant progress is being made.
The strategy has shifted dramatically. It so happened that as we were
shifting our strategy, al-Qaida and their excesses had been more than
the local Iraqi communities could stand, and so we have had a
confluence of interests, as many Iraqi leaders and tribal leaders and
provincial leaders have turned against al-Qaida, understanding the way
of al-Qaida is not the way that would be best for the Iraqi people. So
this is a good confluence. This confluence has brought about the kind
of incredible results the Senator from Missouri was speaking of in Al
Anbar Province. So I believe a political reconciliation is ultimately
the only way in which this will be a successful outcome. But the
conditions on the ground are beginning to be such so as to allow the
kind of a peaceful country to then begin the difficult process of
political reconciliation.
There is no question that the Maliki Government has not delivered as
hoped, but at the same time, some hopeful signs are beginning to
emerge. There is no question the political progress lags behind the
military progress. But I would expect it always would be so. The reason
the military surge went ahead is so there could be the conditions for
political progress.
Over the last several weeks, there have been meetings that have
resulted in the beginnings of what I believe to be the political
accommodations that need to take place. I think particularly important
are the debaathification law and also the law that would allow for
local and provincial elections. These
[[Page S11136]]
will go a long way toward setting the stage for the kind of political
reconciliation that ultimately will make Iraq a peaceful country.
I wish to touch a moment on the report by General Jones on the
conditions of the Iraqi military. I got a very positive assessment from
General Petraeus. Their casualty rate is 3 to 1 to ours. They are
taking the fight to the enemy, and they apparently are conducting
themselves in stellar fashion.
However, they do need our help and will continue to need our help. I
think it is important we note, as General Jones reports, that while he
sees progress by the Iraqi military, surely they are going to be
needing our help in logistics and air cover and things such as that for
some time to come.
There is a big difference between them taking the brunt of the fight,
which I think they are poised to do in the months to come, and still
continuing to need the kind of backup and support that undoubtedly will
take longer for them to build. It is a big difference for our military
to be assisting in logistics than it is to be at the front of the
battlefield. I think the Iraqis might be in a position to do so. I do
not think there is any question that our goal is a successful Iraq, an
Iraq that will not be a safe haven for al-Qaida, nor will it give Iran
the kind of political control over this country that would be
cataclysmic to the security and stability of the region. That is our
goal.
As a result of that goal being achieved, then we will be able to
withdraw our troops. But the goal ought to not be troop withdrawal at
all costs. That would be a mistake for our country. It would be a
mistake for the region. I believe that while progress is difficult and
the sacrifices are great, that enough progress is being made for us to
understand the way forward is a way of continuing involvement there
until such time as Iraq has reached the point of stability that they
can govern themselves and also provide for their own security.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
____________________