[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 135 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11494-S11496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TESTIMONY OF GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we live in a cynical age where the truth is
often discarded because it does not meet the goals of an election
campaign strategy or it is not what the core constituencies of certain
political movements wish to hear.
One does not need to look any further to prove this point than the
media's portrayal of General Petraeus's testimony before Congress this
week.
Lost in the coverage were the hard facts and the veracity of the
personal assessments of a remarkable leader. He has spent years in
Iraq, first, as the commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the
initial race to Baghdad and then as the officer in charge of training
the Iraqi Army. This was followed by his authorship of the ``Army-
Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual'' that was used as the basis for
our current strategy, and now in his role as the commander of Multi-
National Forces--Iraq.
This man deserves the plaudits and credit from all of us. Think about
it. How many of us would spend years away from our wives, our families.
The sacrifices of our men and women over there is remarkable. This man
is one of the most remarkable.
So let us lay aside the rhetoric and learn the truth outlined by this
seasoned commander.
Here are General Petraeus's own words:
As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the
surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in
the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq,
Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in
the security arena. Though improvements have been uneven
across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq
has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number
of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen
since June 2006. One reason for the decline in incidents is
that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows
to al-Qaida-Iraq.
The general goes on to point out:
Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-
sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of
ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across
Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last
December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also
declined during this period, although the numbers in each of
the areas are still at troubling levels. Iraqi Security
Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of
the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about
the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In
general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and
fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the
lead in operations in many areas.
These are the words of a trusted and very capable commander who was
unanimously confirmed by the Senate. They are insightful, and they show
that at long last, we are beginning to make significant progress in
Iraq.
I believe Churchill could have been talking about our current
prospects in Iraq when he said:
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it
is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Yet even before General Petraeus gave us his professional military
opinion on the status of the war, some attempted to undermine the
veracity of his analysis and, worse, the character of the General
himself.
Of course, I am speaking of the disgraceful actions of MoveOn.org and
their now infamous advertisement. Before even having the opportunity to
hear General Petraeus's analysis, this group stated that General
Petraeus is a ``military man constantly at war with the facts.'' It
claimed he was ``cooking the books.'' It asserted that his action is a
betrayal of the American people.
This is shameful.
There is no need to read between the lines.
There is no subtext here.
The text is clear.
MoveOn.org has called General Petraeus a liar.
That is disgusting. It is beneath the dignity of decent and honorable
people.
According to this group, General Petraeus is injuring his country and
endangering those under his command by lying about the progress in
Iraq.
Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General and
anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits
knows these are disgraceful and unwarranted allegations. However, there
might be a silver lining to this libel. Now, all of America understands
why MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots. These
people are nuts. They don't care who they hurt. They don't care whom
they smear. They don't care whom they libel. To them, politics is more
important than anything else, and the accumulation of power is most
important of all. Perhaps if they rejoined the reality-based policy
community, they would have actually waited to hear the General's
analysis before criticizing it.
Here is the reality.
General Petraeus is a consummate professional. He is a man who has
dedicated his life to our country.
And I would note that when you put on a uniform, dedicating your life
to your country has the potential to mean a good deal more than running
for Congress.
But to Moveon.org, which has sadly become a core participant in the
Democratic party's policymaking, General Petraeus is a disgrace to the
uniform.
Let me be clear. It is MoveOn.org that is the disgrace. And I think
it is important that the entire Congress publicly repudiate these
absurd charges. I hope those in this body who are fond of listening to
and following MoveOn.org's misguided policies see this group for what
it is--an American embarrassment.
I have been very interested in watching the debates both on the
Republican side and on the Democratic side. I have been impressed with
the candidates for President. There is no question. They are decent and
honorable people. But they ought to decry this. They should start by
demanding that people within their party start acting responsibly. The
same applies to Republicans. If we have people who are doing
disgraceful, offensive things such as MoveOn.org, we ought to rise out
of our seats and condemn them. I believe good people in both parties
will do that. But thus far, there has been a silence on these issues,
especially when it comes to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
What was particularly galling about the inaccuracies of MoveOn.org's
comments is that many Members of Congress have been to Iraq in the
previous few months and have seen with their own eyes the progress that
is being made. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to
share with my colleagues some of the experiences I had during a trip I
made to Iraq a few months ago with Senator Smith and one of the great
Congresswomen in the House, Congresswoman Harman.
As part of my preparation for this trip, I read with great interest
the articles written by Michael Fumento and published in the Weekly
Standard about the time he was embedded with U.S. forces in Ramadi.
Mr. Fumento wrote as recently as eight months ago that our forces in
Ramadi, described the time between when they went out on patrol and
when they were attacked as the 45-minute rule. Under this rule, our
forces hypothesized that it took the enemy 15 minutes to determine
where an American patrol was and then 30 minutes to
[[Page S11495]]
organize an attack. Unfortunately, those attacks occurred with great
frequency and severity.
However, during my recent trip to Ramadi, I walked--admittedly in
body armor and with a reasonably sized military escort--in one of its
major markets in the heart of the city downtown. There, I saw what
would be unimaginable a few months ago: shopkeepers selling their
goods, children playing, and urban life beginning to reemerge.
How did this happen? First, the local tribal leaders made a decision
that they would no longer tolerate the yoke of tyranny that had been
placed upon them by al-Qaida--and make no mistake, al-Qaida is whom we
are fighting in Ramadi. These leaders saw firsthand their fellow Sunni
Muslims murdered and tortured under al-Qaida's false exploitation of a
noble and peaceable religion. Not surprisingly, these sheiks began
assisting coalition forces and, most importantly, their own Iraqi
security forces in rooting out the terrorists. For example, once the
local leaders decided to support the Coalition, 1,000 citizens of
Ramadi joined the Iraqi security forces almost over night.
The success I witnessed was attained due to the implementation of the
new tactics articulated in General Petraeus's innovative
counterinsurgency strategy. Under this plan, large areas of Ramadi were
encircled and then, led by Iraqi security forces, a thorough search was
conducted in each area. Once these searches were completed and al-Qaida
rooted out, the progress was made permanent by placing Joint Security
Stations throughout the newly cleared territory.
These Joint Security Stations are one of the major reasons we have
seen such advancement in Ramadi and other locations in Iraq. Joint
Security Stations are manned by Iraqi Army and police forces as well as
American forces who live in these installations in order to provide a
permanent security presence for cleared neighborhoods.
Joint Security Stations accomplish three vital goals. First, much
like the local police officer in any city, the U.S. forces become
intimately involved in the security of the enjoining population.
Second, our soldiers also learn about the environment in which they are
living and, therefore, can more readily adapt their operations to
better achieve the goal of providing security for the local population.
Third, our forces help to train and support the Iraqi units assigned to
the Joint Security Stations. Ensuring the Iraqi forces have sufficient
capabilities to independently provide security to their own population
is, of course, one of the primary goals of General Petraeus's strategy.
The implementation of the Joint Security Stations is radically
different from previous tactics. In the past, U.S. forces would clear
an area and then return to bases on the periphery of town and then move
on to their next assignment. The predictable result was that shortly
after the U.S. operation concluded, the insurgents would return to the
area.
No longer.
Joint Security Stations provide continuous security to the local
population. That is why the additional troops that were sent to Iraq as
part of the surge are so important. It is not more for more's sake but
to have sufficient forces to implement effective counterinsurgency
strategies such as the Joint Security Stations.
Fortunately, the success we are seeing in Al Anbar is being
replicated in other locations throughout Iraq. In Baghdad, I was
briefed by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as to the situation
in that city. Here, too, I found that through the implementation of new
strategies and tactics such as the Joint Security Stations, progress
has been made.
One of the early criticisms of the new strategy was the contention
that, even if you secure Baghdad, the terrorists will move to the
provinces such as Diyala in the north. In fact, the then-leader of al-
Qaida, Abu Zarqawi, was killed in Diyala in 2006. However, just as in
Ramadi, the Iraqi local leaders decided they did not want to live under
the tyranny of al-Qaida, and they joined with us in the effort to throw
the terrorists out of the major Diyala city of Baqubah.
However, what also made a lasting impression was the way in which
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker worked together. There are no
bureaucratic fiefdoms here. Far from it. In fact, as one watched the
General and Ambassador finish one another's sentences, one was struck
as to not only how integrated our new strategy is, but how each leader
was searching to incorporate the other's department's strengths in
order to achieve the well-defined goal of defeating the insurgency and
creating an Iraq that could independently secure its own future.
Now, does this mean victory in Iraq is imminent? Hardly.
If one looks to history, counterinsurgency operations are successful
only after a significant period of time. We have only recently
developed and implemented our new strategy.
So what are the other possible strategies?
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle recently supported
the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would
start the reduction of our forces in 120 days. Their legislation would
only permit the forces to remain in Iraq that are necessary to protect
U.S. and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip, and
provide logistics support to the Iraqi security forces; and engage in
targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, affiliated
groups, and other terrorist organizations.
Let's consider that strategy for a moment. Would that not mean that
U.S. forces would be confined to large operating bases in order to
protect Coalition infrastructure and support Iraqi forces--only
venturing out to conduct raids against terrorists?
Does this strategy sound familiar? It certainly does to me.
The Levin-Reed plan reminds me of the failed Rumsfeld plan. Remember,
under Rumsfeld's plan our forces were concentrated in large bases on
the periphery of urban areas, only venturing into town to conduct raids
and, as my colleague from Delaware often reminded us, conducting
patrols where our forces would only speed through areas.
That was a failed policy, not because it was not well implemented; it
just did not work.
Yet my colleagues on the other side are determined to repeat it. But
this time we would proceed with even fewer troops, which we all know,
and many of my Democratic friends continue to point out, was one of the
reasons our initial strategy failed in the first place.
Then there is the cost in human lives if the Democrats plan is
implemented.
As General Petraeus's testimony articulated, elements of the Iraqi
security forces are making progress, but they continue to require
strong support from Coalition forces. That training and support are, in
part, being provided by the Joint Security Stations.
But, if we are to leave precipitously, how many innocent people will
be killed? Remember, it is al-Qaida that is a major instigator of the
sectarian violence in Iraq. According to their adherents, their goal is
simple: Join us, live by our strict rules, or be slaughtered.
I understand the American people are discouraged by this war--but how
will history judge us if we permit the wholesale slaughter of innocent
civilians?
If these arguments do not sway you, then let me ask a question about
our own self-interest.
What happens if Iraq becomes a failed state? Does anyone really
believe al-Qaida would not use Iraq as a base of operations to conduct
terrorist attacks against our homeland?
Does anyone really believe that al-Qaida would not exploit the
petroleum wealth of Iraq to further their objectives? Remember, in
Afghanistan--a country of few natural resources--there were reports
after the fall of Kabul that al-Qaida was working on chemical and
biological weapons.
I wonder what al-Qaida would buy with the billions of dollars it
would accumulate if it controlled even a fraction of Iraq's oil wealth.
Mr. President, we as Americans are known for asking ``what is the
bottom line?''
Here it is:
We have made enormous mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq. So
what do we do? Do we concede defeat, which is really what the Levin-
Reed amendment offers? Do we hope for the best, that al-Qaida will
leave us in peace. Or do we follow the only sensible strategy that
[[Page S11496]]
is beginning to show some signs of success?
I believe we all know the sensible answer to that question.
We must not yield.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________