[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10496-H10497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         A BIPARTISAN WAY AHEAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, there is a bipartisan ``way ahead'' in Iraq 
if viewed in terms of progress for America's security and not solely 
Iraq's, with a strategy that focuses on our natural interests in this 
conflict, not just the interests of Iraqis.
  Our troops have served our country courageously and brilliantly, but 
our engagement in Iraq has degraded our security, pushing our Army to 
the breaking point so that it cannot confront other pressing security 
concerns at home and abroad. My military service as a 3-star admiral, 
having led an aircraft carrier battle group in combat operations in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and served as Director of the Navy's antiterrorism 
unit, convinces me that an inconclusive, open-ended involvement in Iraq 
is not in our security interests.
  Ending this war is necessary, but how we end it is of even greater 
importance both for our security and our troops' safety. These two 
considerations, our security and our troops' safety, are the dual 
catalysts for a bipartisan discussion to end this war.
  First, America's security. Our Army will rapidly unravel if 
redeployment from Iraq does not begin before spring, 2008. Today, 40 
percent of all U.S. Army equipment is in Iraq. There is no Army unit 
now at home in a state of readiness able to deploy anywhere another 
contingency might occur in the world.
  Second, the safety of our troops. Redeployment from Iraq will be 
lengthy. Moving 160,000 troops and 50,000 civilians and closing bases 
are logistically challenging, especially in conflict. To ensure our 
troops' safety, it will take at least a year, probably 15 to 24 months. 
The ``long pole in the tent'' is the closure or turnover of 65 forward 
operating bases. Conservatively, it takes 100 days to close one forward 
operating base. It will be important to balance how many to close at 
one time, with calculations about surrounding strife, and the fact that 
Kuwait's receiving facilities to clean and package vehicles for customs 
and shipment back to the United States can handle only two to 2\1/2\ 
brigade combat teams at a time, with the fact that there are currently 
40 brigade combat team equivalents in Iraq today.
  Redeployment is the most vulnerable of all military operations, 
particularly because this one will be down a single road leading from 
Iraq to Kuwait, ``Road Tampa.'' Such vulnerability is why, in 1993, 
after ``Black Hawk Down'' in Somalia, it took 6 months to extract our 
6,300 troops safely and only then after inserting an additional 19,000 
troops to protect their redeployment.
  And what of Iraqi stability in the aftermath of our redeployment, 
which affects the region and, thus, our security? Because the 
redeployment of troops will take a long time, we can have a bipartisan 
approach to Iraq's security. To do this, we Democrats must turn from 
pure opposition to this war and an immediate withdrawal and begin to 
help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the 
necessity for a deliberate redeployment.
  In turn, the Republican leadership must accept that the U.S. 
Government

[[Page H10497]]

must also work diplomatically with Iran and Syria during this 
deliberate redeployment. While these two countries are currently 
involved destructively in this war, according to our intelligence 
community, these nations want stability in Iraq after our departure 
and, therefore, can play a constructive role.
  I have consistently argued that a planned end to our military 
engagement is necessary and that such a date certain deadline would 
force Iraqi leaders to assume responsibility, providing Iran and Syria 
the incentive to prevent violence otherwise caused by our departure.
  Our troops could either return home or deploy to regions such as 
Afghanistan, where terrorists pose a threat to our security, while 
others remain at our existing bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab 
Emirates, Qatar, and on aircraft carrier and amphibious groups to 
ensure our interests in the region as we did prior to invading Iraq.
  Because our Army must either start a lengthy redeployment or risk 
unraveling, we have the catalyst for a bipartisan agreement to end this 
war with a stable Iraq if we also work with Iran and Syria to meet this 
goal. However, this opportunity for a bipartisan congressional approach 
to convince the President to use diplomacy to bring about a stable 
accommodation in Iraq once our troops redeploy will undoubtedly require 
an initial redeployment deadline that is a ``goal'' instead of a ``date 
certain.'' Therefore, despite my continuing belief that a date certain 
is the best leverage we have to change Iraqis' and regional nations' 
behavior, when faced with the otherwise assured consequences of a 
bipartisan stalemate on resolving the tragic misadventure in Iraq, this 
compromise is needed for America's security.

                          ____________________