[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11284-S11285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE PETRAEUS PLAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. When we opened this session in January, the situation 
in Iraq appeared to be unraveling. Sectarian violence had sharply 
increased, particularly in Baghdad, since the bombing of the Golden 
Mosque. Foreign fighters were taking advantage of this fighting to 
inflame it even more. And two options emerged: withdraw our forces and 
abandon this fledgling democracy to al-Qaida and the other terrorists, 
or confront them directly, in the streets and neighborhoods where they 
lived.
  We needed a new and realistic strategy to succeed, and we got one. 
The President proposed, and a Democratic-led Senate unanimously 
confirmed, Gen David Petraeus on January 26 to carry out a new plan 
aimed at protecting the population in and around Baghdad, beating back 
al-Qaida, and training Iraqi forces to defend Iraq on their own. The 
new plan would take time and patience. We had no guarantees it would 
work. But General Petraeus assured us of one thing. In testimony 
delivered just before his Senate confirmation, he said this:

       I will provide Multinational Force Iraq the best leadership 
     and direction I can muster; I will work to ensure unity of 
     effort with the ambassador and our Iraqi and coalition 
     partners; and I will provide my bosses and you with 
     forthright, professional military advice with respect to the 
     missions given to Multinational Force Iraq and the situation 
     on the ground.

  That was General Petraeus.
  And if he should determine that this new strategy cannot succeed, the 
general said he would provide such an assessment.--a promise of candor.
  Tomorrow, General Petraeus will give the Senate the forthright advice 
he promised, a first-hand account by the commander of U.S. forces in 
Iraq on the progress of their mission. And then we, the men and women 
who unanimously confirmed him for that mission, will respond 
accordingly. This briefing will take place 6 years to the day after the 
attacks of 9/11--when nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed in 
unprovoked attacks; more than in another sneak attack some 60 years 
earlier at Pearl Harbor.
  Over those 6 years, General Petraeus has compiled an astounding 
record of service. He has spent 4 of them deployed away from home and 
away from his family, with nearly 3 years service in Iraq. Let me say 
that again: 3 years of service in Iraq.
  He led the 101st Airborne with distinction in northern Iraq early in 
the fight. Later he improved the way we trained Iraqi security forces 
after early mistakes by the Coalition Provisional Authority. And he 
served as commander of the U.S. Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort 
Leavenworth, where he developed the Army's doctrine on 
counterinsurgency--he literally wrote the book.
  He has proven his devotion to this country. His integrity is above 
reproach. And any suggestion to the contrary is totally absurd and 
demonstrably untrue.
  And so I resent the comments of those who have sat comfortably in 
their air-conditioned offices, thousands of miles away from the 
firefights and the roadside bombs, and tried their Washington best in 
recent days to impugn the general's good name.
  The Democratic majority sent him into battle by a unanimous vote, 
funded his mission, and asked him to report back on progress. And when 
he returns, is he greeted with the respect and appreciation his service 
deserves? No. He is attacked again, at home, by some of the very 
Democratic Senators who confirmed him.
  They are following the lead of the left-wing groups that placed a 
full-page ad in today's New York Times, questioning the character--
questioning the character--of a four-star general who has the respect 
and admiration of the more than 150,000 brave men and women serving 
under his command. These childish tactics are an insult to everyone 
fighting for our freedom in Iraq, and they should be condemned. I am 
waiting for someone on the other side to condemn this ad in the New 
York Times today--the condemnation it richly deserves.
  Republicans have tried to maintain a level of civility in this 
debate. We have let most of the rhetorical excesses of the other side 
slide, knowing that tempers are bound to flare in this charged 
environment. But the effort to discredit General Petraeus personally 
over the past few days is completely and totally out of bounds. It 
needs to be recognized as such, and it needs to end--right now.
  The early effort to undermine his mission was troubling enough. 
Scarcely had a fraction of the additional soldiers or marines landed in 
Iraq before we started hearing the voices of defeat. Amazingly, some 
Democrats who had called for a surge before January, would then label 
the policy a failure 2 full months before it fully began. Others said 
the war was lost even as these soldiers and marines were being sent 
into battle.
  General Petraeus was asked to carry out a new plan, and it would be a 
challenge. But it was guaranteed to fail too if armchair generals in 
Washington were allowed to dictate the battle plan from here. And with 
the help of a single courageous Independent, Republicans circled around 
a simple principle: tactics would be dictated by conditions on the 
ground, not the political thermometer. Before rushing to legislative 
judgment, we would listen closely to our commanders.
  We held our ground. Despite the best efforts of some of our 
colleagues on the other side, we gave our commanders what they needed 
to carry out their plan. Not least of all we gave them hope that they'd 
have the time and the funding to do their work.
  As the summer dragged on here in Washington, leftist groups continued 
to insist on an arbitrary withdrawal date. And when they failed to get 
their wish in Congress, they followed Republicans home over the August 
recess, pouring money into misleading political ads and busing in 
protesters. This was the other surge, a surge aimed at intimidating 
Republicans who supported the Petraeus Plan.
  These efforts were misguided--and of course they failed.
  They failed because Americans will always choose the hopeful path, 
when they see one in view. And while the defeatists were pouring out of 
their buses

[[Page S11285]]

with their coffee and their doughnuts last month, thousands of tough, 
determined American soldiers and marines were spilling out into Iraqi 
cities and villages finding a way to win this fight. And the news that 
started to trickle back from those villages and towns was this: after a 
long season of setbacks, there is reason for hope.
  The first major combat operation of the surge began less than 3 
months ago on June 15. And the early reports of our commanders in the 
field confirm some truly remarkable gains. Our second in command, GEN 
Raymond Odierno, has told us that total attacks are at the lowest level 
since last August, that attacks against civilians are at a 6-month low; 
civilian murders in Baghdad are down to their lowest point since just 
before the bombing of the Golden Mosque; and that he sees a new 
aggressiveness in Iraqi soldiers, and discipline and pride.
  This report mirrored others that we have heard, from journalists and 
independent analysts, about the strong morale of U.S. troops. One of 
those reports came in late July. After spending 8 days with American 
and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, two prominent early critics 
of the war at the left-leaning Brookings Institution issued a call to 
all critics: stop, look, listen.
  They said morale among U.S. troops is high, that troops are confident 
in their commander, that they see results, and that they believe they 
have the numbers to make a difference. And then they told us what many 
others have confirmed: that Iraqis themselves are turning on the 
extremists, that Al Anbar, once thought to be lost to al-Qaida, has 
gone in 6 months from being the worst place in Iraq to the best. The 
marines and soldiers fighting in Anbar have been working with the local 
tribes and sheiks for years to produce this result, but their efforts 
are beginning to show remarkable results.
  The authors of this report didn't sugarcoat the hard realities in 
Iraq. The obstacles are enormous. And they admitted what all of us, 
including General Petraeus, have long known and repeatedly said: that 
we can't stay in Iraq indefinitely at current troop levels. But, they 
concluded, we are finally getting somewhere militarily. And it would be 
foolish to turn back now.
  We have heard of stirring scenes in recent weeks: hundreds of 
thousands of Iraqi pilgrims marching to the Kadhimiya Shrine in Baghdad 
in peace, protected by the Iraqi security forces. Political leaders 
from across the ethnic divides who once stood by silently as terrorists 
bombed neighborhoods and mosques now joining together to condemn them. 
Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, Shias, and Christians working together in Ninevah 
to help the victims of the recent bombing there.
  Americans like what they have heard. Recent polls suggest that an 
increasing number of Americans now think we have a chance of winning. 
They have put their trust in our commanders and the troops in the 
field, and they trust that we will respect their gains and listen to 
their general, without prejudice, when he reports back to us this week. 
The early successes of the Petraeus Plan give America hope that we can 
bring about ample stability to Iraq, and it also gives us real hope 
that we can start to bring our troops back, not in retreat but with 
full honor and pride.
  None of us wants the troops to stay in Iraq any longer than it takes 
to make it a stable democracy capable of defending itself. But 
Republicans have insisted that we let the uniformed generals advise us 
when that time comes, not armchair generals who are more focused on the 
polls than on a successful mission.
  General Petraeus has already hinted that a reduction in troop levels 
might be possible at or near the end of the year. This is the most 
welcome news yet, and if he recommends it tomorrow, I assure you 
Republicans will be ready to draft the legislation supporting that 
request.
  We hope that Democrats who have signaled a willingness to cooperate 
on Iraq, after 8 months of insisting on arbitrary withdrawal dates and 
premature troop reductions, join us in acknowledging that our generals 
know better than we do what it takes to win this war.
  Again, none of us wants the troops in harm's way a minute longer than 
necessary. But while there is a chance for hope, we will not retreat. 
We know the stakes if we leave Iraq to terrorists: slaughter on an 
unimaginable scale, the abandonment of an entire nation to vicious 
killers who would use it as a staging ground for future acts of 
violence against Americans, an open field for Iran, and the entire 
world murmuring that America doesn't have the patience or the stomach 
or the grit to win.
  Some on the other side of the aisle sent General Petraeus to Iraq, 
then tried to control the mission. When that failed, they tried to 
define the mission as a failure. And in a last-minute burst of 
defeatism, they have tried to discredit the man they sent to carry that 
mission out. No wonder a recent poll showed that only 3 percent of 
Americans think the Democratic Congress is doing a good job handling 
the war.
  Let's listen to General Petraeus when he gets here, really listen. I 
know that is hard for Senators, but let's listen and respond 
accordingly. At some point we will have to draw down our forces, and we 
won't leave perfection in our wake. We know we will have to maintain a 
long-term presence in Iraq and the region. We must deter Iran, we must 
combat al-Qaida, and we cannot countenance terrorist sanctuaries.
  But crafting a wise policy for the region over the long term will be 
impossible in the current partisan climate. Let's listen to the ranking 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the senior Senator from 
Indiana, who said we will only be able to craft a sustainable 
bipartisan strategy in Iraq together.
  Eight months ago, the situation in Iraq was unraveling. It remains 
difficult and dangerous. But there is hope and proof, not only of 
success, not only of bottom-up political progress on the ground, but 
for the reduction in troops that all of us want. And if General 
Petraeus says this is warranted, then we will act, together, and move 
forward with new confidence that we can craft a sensible policy for 
protecting our interests not only in Iraq but in the broader Persian 
Gulf.
  Let's allow this man to speak tomorrow and listen to him without 
prejudice.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________