[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 131 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S11207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                  IRAQ

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Iraq, as I have 
every day this week that we have been here. First, I know we all have 
the deepest gratitude and respect for the sacrifice of the brave men 
and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq. Make no mistake 
about it, the troops are doing their job. I am concerned, however, that 
their mission is not worthy of their great sacrifice, especially the 
President's surge.
  The surge, despite earlier reports this week, has failed to meet the 
objectives set out by the President. And the President can't change 
that fact by changing the goal. He is now claiming progress in Iraq as 
evidence that the surge--directed at Baghdad--is working. While the 
President has claimed progress in Anbar, it was not the surge that 
brought the momentary calm to this region, because the surge was 
focused mainly on Baghdad, and the difficult process of political 
reconciliation. Its objective, as stated by the President himself, was 
to create breathing room for the central Iraqi Government to make 
political progress.
  Our brave troops have been in Anbar for years and years, doing the 
first-rate job they always do in what is a very difficult environment. 
Now, however, some elements of the local population, and some of their 
leaders, have made common cause with the brave men and women of our 
military. They have cooperated with our troops out of distaste for the 
brutal methods of al-Qaida. While this is a welcome and helpful 
development, it is neither the foundation upon which a successful long-
term strategy can be launched, nor is it a result of the surge, which 
was targeted mainly at Baghdad and the national Iraqi political 
process.
  We have heard about successes in the past. They are temporary. They 
are not based on any permanent structural change or any permanent 
change in the views of the Iraqi citizens. The Shiites, the Sunnis, and 
the Kurds still despise each other. They dislike each other more than 
they like any central government. We have heard about success in the 
past in Baghdad, and we have heard about success in Fallujah, and they 
vanish like the wind because the fundamentals on the ground haven't 
changed.
  Now, at a time when the American people are crying out for a change 
in course, some are pointing to a temporary situation in one province--
Anbar--as a way to continue the present misguided policy. It makes no 
sense. It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the 
same. There is no central government that has any viability, and the 
warlords in Anbar Province have no relationship with the central 
government whatsoever. The Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, as I 
have stated, dislike each other far more than they like or want any 
central government, and these two facts doom the administration's 
policy to failure.
  We should not have our brave soldiers fighting a civil war caught 
between rival political and religious factions. We desperately need a 
change in course, a change in course that recognizes the political 
situation on the ground, and I urge that this body move forward to do 
just that.

                          ____________________