[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10603-H10609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAJORITY MAKERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this hour by talking
about a subject that has become one of the most significant issues of
our time. I am going to be joined by members of the freshman class or
the Majority Makers throughout this hour to talk about Iraq.
We have heard in recent days about what the President's idea of our
way forward is. He has called for more money and more patience and a
renewed commitment to U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future,
another stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path toward a $1
trillion, at least 10-year presence war in Iraq. On top of that, we
have no convincing evidence that the political reconciliation necessary
will be achieved even after so much sacrifice on the part of our brave
troops will be realized.
I believe that the President's plan for Iraq amounts to an open-ended
and dangerous commitment of American troops in Iraq and an open wallet
from the American people to pay for it.
The question should not be whether we keep our troops in Iraq for 10
years. The question should be: How do we responsibly redeploy our
troops? And how do we develop that plan that will do so while we
continue to protect our homeland and fight against terrorists?
On August 19, we saw in the New York Times an editorial that was
written by seven brave U.S. soldiers. I bring this to the attention,
Mr. Speaker, of you and all those who may be tuned in because I think
it is important that we listen to their vantage point. And while I
won't be reading the entire article, I will read excerpts from it.
Again, it is August 19, the New York Times, and I would suggest that
everybody who can take a look at the complete editorial. It is
entitled, ``The War As We Saw It.'' And it begins:
``Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the
political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is,
by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents
for the control and support of a population.
{time} 1630
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago
outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local
population and win this counterinsurgency is farfetched. As responsible
infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne
Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press
coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it
has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see
every day.''
And then they say, in parentheses, ``Obviously these are our personal
views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.''
They continue:
``The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields
in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered
framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are
offset by some failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the `battle
space' remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is
crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists,
al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes.
This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and
Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi army, which have been
trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.''
And then they continue:
``Reports that a majority of Iraqi army commanders are now reliable
partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that
battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little or no influence
over the thousands of obstinate men under them in an incoherent chain
of command who are really loyal only to their militias.''
They continue in this article, and they state, ``Political
reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways
that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the
reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political
sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party
the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice
that we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to
please every party to this conflict, as we do now, will only ensure we
are hated by all in the long run.''
These brave soldiers conclude this op-ed with the following:
``It would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center
stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we
assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as
they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather
to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends
without recognizing the incongruities.''
They say, ``We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers,
we will see this mission through.''
I share that because I think it's worth having out there for our
consideration and our contemplation to add to the wealth of information
that is being presented to the American people.
I'm sad to report that since this op-ed began, they started writing
this, during the course of writing it, one of these brave soldiers was
shot in the head, and he is recovering. But on September 13, the
headline in the same New York Times sadly stated, ``Skeptical But Loyal
Soldiers Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq.'' And two of these soldiers who
had the courage not only to go and fight for our Nation but to do
everything they were asked to do were killed in Iraq.
We are here today to talk about this pressing, pressing issue. The
light that
[[Page H10604]]
has been shed on this by these soldiers should be part of the
discussion. I am joined here on the floor right now by a couple of my
colleagues, leaders on this issue, I know, who feel it deeply. The
gentleman from Florida, Ron Klein, a tremendous new Member, at this
point I am going to just yield to him for his remarks.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you, Congresswoman Sutton.
It's a pleasure to serve with you and the other 54 Members of our
class. They call us freshmen. Some people call us freshmen. Some people
call us majority makers. But clearly we're new Members, and I think
that as new Members we probably have heard through some very active
campaigns a very clear message from our communities and, that is,
what's going on in Iraq, this is back in November, but continues to
today, as your point is, is not working. And it's not working on a
number of levels.
The way I sort of focus on this is the notion that all this should be
about the national security of the American people. This is about what
makes us safe in our homes, our communities, our States, our country.
And yes, we obviously have interests around the world in other places
as well. But first and foremost, what's important to us is at home,
that we know our families and that we are protected.
The problem as I see it, and I think it has now been confirmed, and
I'm on the Foreign Affairs Committee, so I've had the opportunity, as
many of the Members of Congress have had, to get the briefings of a
number of people, including members of the State Department and others,
and we've all had the chance to go over and speak to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff over at the Pentagon to get a firsthand question-and-answer
about what the assumptions were in the surge and what the assumptions
were in adding or subtracting military personnel and how our
commitments were affecting the rest of our military and the rest of the
commitments that we as Americans have internally. National Guard. I
come from Florida. We have hurricane season, and are we at risk in
terms of being able to respond, or anywhere in the world where our
military is needed.
I think it's very clear, and I think most Americans understand this,
that al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the people that perpetrated 9/11, it
wasn't Iraq, it was Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was not in
Iraq at the time of September 11.
The bottom line is Osama bin Laden is still operating. Al Qaeda is
still operating. And it's not operating in Baghdad. Sure there are
cells in places in Iraq, and it's up to our military, and our military
understands its responsibilities to root them out. Those are specific
engagements and we should find those cells and root them out.
But al Qaeda is not limited to Iraq. They're operating in different
parts of the world. Afghanistan is at a tipping point, as we understand
it. Nobody, no Democrat or Republican, seems to be contesting that
issue. Americans understand that the Taliban and al Qaeda are re-
emerging in Afghanistan. Yet, our assets, our men, our women, our
military hardware and equipment are saddled and stuck in Iraq. That's
not to say that there's not a terrible situation in Iraq. It is a
terrible situation.
But as Americans, we have to put ourselves first and say, what's in
the best interest for America? Both here at home, and dealing with
Afghanistan, dealing if there's a problem in Pakistan, dealing with
Iran, dealing with North Korea. These are the potential hot spots
around the world, where there are potential nuclear issues and things
like that.
My biggest concern all along, and I know I shar this with certainly
all Members of our Democratic side, and I know many Republicans. This
is not a Democrat-Republican issue. This is an American issue. It's
what is the right thing to do. I think it's very clear, based on
everything we've seen so far, is that this is not going to get resolved
now, 6 months from now, a year from now, 5, 10 years from now, with
just a military solution.
Senator Lindsay Graham, a Republican from the Carolinas, was before
our Foreign Affairs Committee today, and he said he was there. He also
specifically said, listen, our generals are generals. He comes from a
military background. He did work in the legal corps of our military. He
said, but, you know, generals are not always necessarily right. Ask
them the tough questions. I know when General Petraeus came before our
committee and many of us listened very carefully as to what he had to
say, many of us were not quite fully satisfied that the answers were
consistent. On the one hand he said, yeah, we're going to draw down. On
the other hand he's saying, we need power, we need troops, we need, you
know, the power to make sure that everything is there. It didn't all
sound consistent to me.
But the bottom line is I think we need to be strategic and smart. And
redeployment is not a question of getting everybody out immediately.
Nobody is suggesting that among our group here today. What we are
saying is be smart. Secure the borders. Do some things to make sure
this doesn't spill out. Really double and triple our efforts to retrain
the military, and there are other ideas not limited to anybody in this
room. There are lots of generals out there, retired and active, that
are coming up with good suggestions.
But repackaging the stay-the-course approach, which is what is going
on right now, is not the answer. We need to have a better answer to
protect our men and women in the field, and protect America most
significantly, at home and abroad.
Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Klein.
I couldn't agree more that we need to have that kind of a plan. And
unfortunately, a plan for responsibly redeploying and a plan for
dealing with the broad scope of protecting America and what's in
America's best interest is not being offered up. In fact, it's not even
being discussed, because we're having the same discussion that we've
been having for years now about staying the course in Iraq.
I would like to shift it over to my colleague from New Hampshire,
Representative Carol Shea-Porter, who I know can shed a great deal of
light on this as well as a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I am on the Armed Services Committee and we've had many, many
hearings on this issue. It has become very clear to me that we need a
plan to redeploy responsibly and to start it immediately.
First, let's go over some of the facts once again because it is a
national security issue here. There were no Iraqis on the plane that
day. 9/11, there were no Iraqis. But we were attacked by people who had
been trained in Afghanistan in Osama bin Laden's group, and we needed
to go there. We needed to go to Afghanistan. We still need to win in
Afghanistan. But somehow or another we got diverted to Iraq, and we
have paid the price, and the Iraqis have paid the price as well.
We are now spending $10 billion a month, that we acknowledge, in
Iraq. We really don't know the cost. We borrow money from Communist
China to pay for this.
I was a military spouse and so I'm feeling particularly protective of
our troops. Our soldiers are exhausted. We send the same team in over
and over again. This is an American problem, not a Republican problem
or a Democratic problem. It's an American problem, and it calls for an
American solution.
Let us talk about what it looks like in Iraq right now. And I have
been there. What it looks like right now, and it was the independent
Jones report that verified this, and I appreciated the report very
much, retired General Jones and his commission. What they talked about
was 2.2 million Iraqis displaced within the borders of Iraq. Every
single month for the past 6 months, 100,000 Iraqis have moved. They've
left their homes, their communities, their jobs, if they had jobs, and
they have moved.
Now, why would 100,000 people move? Because it's not safe. It's as
simple as that. We've had ethnic cleansing there. If you look at the
maps that was in the Jones Commission, 2005, you could see in the
neighborhoods in Baghdad that they were mixed, Sunni and Shiia living
side by side. By 2007, the mixed neighborhoods are virtually gone.
They've had ethnic cleansing. They have militias.
People say, well, you know, take a look at this. The Sunnis have
joined with the United States to defeat al
[[Page H10605]]
Qaeda. No, not really. What it is is an enemy of my enemy is a friend.
What has happened here is that the Sunnis have joined with the U.S.
right now so they can rid themselves of their enemies.
We estimate that al Qaeda is maybe 7 to 10 percent of the violence
there. But the reality is that most of this violence is still a civil
war. It comes from within and it has not gotten better.
We know that 95 percent of the children are showing terrible signs of
post-traumatic stress syndrome disorder. We know that they have dirty
water. We know that they have 2 hours of electricity if they're lucky.
We know that in every way to measure standard of life, it has
declined. Why are we still there? That's the question that all of us
are asking. Why are we still in Iraq? And why does the President have a
plan that says, stay. Stay for how long? Just stay. That is not
acceptable to the American public anymore.
I yield back to you and I thank you very much for bringing this to
the floor today so that we can tell the American people what has really
happened, what we have heard from independent commissions, and what the
reality is for the people of Iraq and the people of the United States.
I would like to add one more point which is important. Let's look at
the American benchmarks and let's ask where America is now. Where are
we on education? Where are we on health care? Where are we on jobs?
Where are we on infrastructure? We have poured so much money into Iraq.
What about American benchmarks?
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent remarks. I
guess the question that comes to mind when you ask where are we on
these domestic items, where are we going to be in 10 years on these
domestic items?
At this point I would just like to shift it over to my great
colleague, a new freshman Member, a majority maker who has brought a
lot of valuable insight and knowledge to this body and on this subject,
the Honorable Joe Courtney.
{time} 1645
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Congressman Sutton, for yielding.
And I just want to follow up with my friend from the Armed Services
Committee about the lack of strategic balance that presently is
occurring right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. In late August, German
authorities arrested three terrorists who were plotting a major attack
on an American military installation in Germany. Where were they
trained? Well, we know the answer. They were trained in northern
Pakistan, in that region of the world where our own military and
intelligence officials have identified the real threat to Europe and
the U.S. in terms of where future hits are going to take place.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was in Afghanistan in
May. We had briefings from military commanders over there who have said
that training camps are in full level of activity, and they made a flat
prediction that we are going to see attempted attacks emanating from
that region of the world.
Let's step back. We have 26,000 troops in Afghanistan; 165,000 troops
in Iraq. Is this a strategy that is really aimed at what is in the
national interest of this country? I mean obviously if we look at just
recent events in terms of where arrests are taking place, where the
real training is taking place to hit Europe and the U.S., the fact of
the matter is it is in the northern part of Pakistan, which is an area
that the Taliban is now pretty much able to move and operate unimpeded
because we have a dysfunctional relationship with the Pakistani
Government and the Afghan Government is too weak to basically police
those borders.
And I think a lot of the debate that is taking place right now after
the Petraeus-Crocker report, which is appropriately focused on whether
or not the benchmarks that the Iraq Government set forth have been met
and what is the level of wear and tear in terms of our Armed Forces,
they are clearly important to discuss, but we also need to have an
overall strategic vision about what is in the national interest of this
country. And the fact is being involved at the level that we are at
right now in a civil war in Iraq is not in America's national interest,
and for the sake of our military families, as Congresswoman Shea-Porter
indicated, and certainly for a safer, smarter foreign policy, we need
to have a change in course and a redeployment.
Over the summer the New York Times did a study on the situation right
now in terms of the mid-level officer corps of our Armed Services, our
ground forces. In the 2001 graduating class from West Point, which just
completed their 5-year tour of duty, 44 percent of the class have left
the Armed Forces. That is the highest number in three decades. People
need to think about that in terms of what is happening to the best and
the brightest in our military. They are voting with their feet. They
are leaving the armed services. And many commanders from the Vietnam
era, General Shinseki being one of them, the Army chief of staff who
had the wisdom and vision to predict that we would need hundreds of
thousands of troops if we were going to truly police Iraq after
Afghanistan, have spoken all across the country about the fact that
what's happening in Iraq today is having the same effect, same negative
effect, on our Armed Forces that the war in Vietnam had, which is a
hollowed-out mid-level officer corps of our armed services. It took a
generation to recover from that, and we are now seeing, with the exodus
that is happening right now with, again, the best and brightest of our
West Point graduates leaving our armed services, that we, for the sake
of our own future, ground forces and military readiness, need to have a
change of course in Iraq.
And Senator Webb has an amendment that's coming up, the Dwell Time
Amendment, which will require the Armed Forces by law to make sure that
our Armed Forces have the same amount of dwell time as they do
deployment. I think that is an important step. I am very excited that
it looks like we are going to get to the 60-vote number in the Senate
and overcome a cloture, that we are going to start bringing some sanity
back into our military and defense policy so that we don't destroy the
greatest warfighting machine in the world.
And I know Congressman Welch from Vermont, my neighbor to the north
and a good Red Sox fan, is also someone who has talked a lot about this
issue in terms of the impact on our military families, and I would be
happy to hear from Congressman Welch from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of us want to be here talking about
the war because it's a tragedy, and I believe the American people have
come to that conclusion. Whether they supported going into the war or
they opposed going into the war, they figured out that at this point
our military men and women have done all they can do. They toppled
Saddam. They reported back truthfully that there were no weapons of
mass destruction, and they allowed stability in Iraq so that Iraq had
three democratic elections. At a certain point, it is up to the Iraqis
to step up and build their own institutions and their own democracy. We
obviously can help and we have some responsibility. But the American
people, those who supported the war, those who opposed going into the
war initially, have come to a pretty commonsense conclusion: We have
done our job, the military has performed ably, and it is time for the
Iraqis to take our place.
The fundamental question that the President has put to this Congress
and to the American people is this: Is it the proper role of the United
States military to be refereeing a civil war? That's the question. Now,
Republicans and Democrats in the past have been united that our
military has a primary responsibility for defending us in fighting
wars, not for refereeing civil wars.
A couple of things. One, there has never been an example in the
history of the world where a third-party military has actually refereed
a civil war to a peaceful political and economic conclusion. There are
examples of third-party militaries, outside militaries, coming in on
one side and, through force of arms, imposing an outcome. But that is
not the policy even of the Bush administration.
Is this a civil war? Here's what is going on in Iraq right now: There
are several different civil wars that are underway. In the south in the
Basra region where our ally Great Britain has
[[Page H10606]]
basically taken its 44,000 troops down to 5,000 troops and redeployed
them to a base, there are three different Shia wars going on. They're
not fighting about democracy. They're not fighting pro- or anti-Iran
primarily. They're not fighting about the future of Iraq as a united
country. They are fighting about oil. It is about who is going to be in
control of that port and that refinery in Basra.
You then go to Kurdistan. Kurdistan has been, in effect, independent
since 1991, Mr. Speaker, after the first Gulf War. And they have
actually built an economy. They have outside investment coming in. They
will not even allow the Iraqi flag to be flown in Kurdistan and are
bent on achieving their own independence. But they want oil as well and
are threatening, and they have an independent military, the Peshmurga,
to take significant forceful action if they don't, from their
perspective, get their share of oil in the Kirkuk region.
Then you have Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of the most extreme
ethnic cleansing. Before the fall o Saddam, Baghdad had 65 percent
population that was Sunni. That was the seat of Saddam's power. Now it
is 75 percent Shia.
A neighborhood that I visited, Mr. Courtney, when I was with a
delegation to Iraq, the Dora neighborhood, had previously been Sunni
and was now Shia, and peace came about basically by displacing the
people who used to be there and putting new people in.
And the overall dislocation in Iraq is astonishing, as you mentioned,
my friend from New Hampshire: 2 million Iraqis displaced internally, 2
million exiled; 4 million people already, about 60,000 a month, are
affected by this. And that is the equivalent in the United States, 20
percent of our population or about 50 million people. Think about it if
50 million people were displaced, either thrown out of the country or
fleeing the country or had to move from Texas to Vermont or Vermont to
New York because of force and fear.
Then you have the provinces around Baghdad. The Sunni Triangle,
Anbar, Diyala, a couple of provinces where General Petraeus was arguing
that there was, quote, ``progress.'' Well, again, no one is going to
quibble about a military person's estimation of whether there is
military progress, but what has happened there largely is that there
has been dislocation. The Sunni tribal leaders have done what most
analysts expected they would do: They would turn against al Qaeda
because they are nationalists. They are much more concerned about Iraq
than they are accommodating this radical ideology and they would,
quote, ``work with the United States.''
But what's the price that we are paying? What is the tactical
decision that was made? The decision was made to arm tribal chiefs.
Now, that can work in the short run. It gives them arms to fight
alongside American soldiers in some particular circumstances. But what
is the overall policy of the Bush administration? It is a strong
central Iraqi Government centered in Baghdad. So what you have now is a
United States policy that arms factions in the provinces, which is a
momentary truce of convenience, that has no loyalty to the central
government in Baghdad. And down the road, as what happened in
Afghanistan when the United States, to pursue its interest against the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, armed the Taliban, and that Taliban
then became the monster that produced an Osama bin Laden. But we have
our policy where we are literally doing two things against the middle:
arming factions who are hostile to a central government even as we say
our goal is to have a strong central government.
So none of us know what all the details are, but what you have is an
incredibly internal complexity: a Shia south where there is Shia
factional fighting, a Sunni Triangle where there is a temporary
alliance of convenience, you have ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and you
have a Kurdistan that is insisting upon being independent.
Incidentally, on this question of being independent, even the
President's friends who have business interests are getting it. You
read the report last week about Hunt Oil. Hunt Oil is owned by Mr.
Hunt, a very good friend of the President, a big contributor and a
member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee that the President pays
deference to, listens to. Mr. Hunt bypassed the central government in
Iraq and is entering into a direct oil agreement with Kurdistan. So he
not only has made his bet that the President's policy is going to fail,
he is making arrangements to profit by that failure.
So why is it that we are asking the American military, the American
taxpayer to continue pursuing a dead-end policy? There is one reason
that the President now offers to defend a policy that is bankrupt, that
is a dead end, that has a history of failure. That argument that the
administration is making is this: If we leave, there will be chaos.
Now, think about it. Those who oppose the war, those who voted
against it argue that if we invaded Iraq, in all likelihood the outcome
would be the quick toppling of Saddam and the long-term chaos and
violence that would follow. The argument that the President rejected
then he is embracing now.
All of us who oppose the war really do so with a heavy heart because
we know that the choices that are available to this country and to the
people of Iraq are very constrained and there is going to be untold
suffering that lies ahead. We don't have good choices, but the question
is what is the right choice that is going to mitigate the suffering?
And that right choice has to be to redeploy our troops because the
continued presence of the United States through the military emphasizes
a military approach to a political problem. And that's why all of us
are here doing everything we can to change our direction in Iraq.
And I thank you for my opportunity to participate with my wonderful
colleagues.
Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Welch.
And we have been joined by another great new Member of the class and
a great help on issues related to Iraq and so many more things, my
colleague from the Rules Committee, the esteemed Mike Arcuri.
I yield to Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the
great State of Ohio for organizing this and bringing us all together
here, and I thank all of you for being here.
Like so many other Members of Congress, I have had an opportunity to
go to Iraq. And recently I came back from there, about 3 weeks ago, and
I couldn't help but be so impressed with the incredible job that our
troops are doing there. The men and women that are there are doing
everything that is asked of them and much more in an incredibly hostile
environment.
{time} 1700
And they're doing it not just as a job, but they're doing it with
intensity and passion. And they're doing a great job at what they do in
just incredibly hostile circumstances. I am convinced, after seeing the
job that they did, that our military, in a just cause, could accomplish
anything we ask of them, anything in the world. And I was just very
impressed with how hard they're working.
But you can't help but be troubled by the fact that the mission there
continues to change. I can't help but think about, the old example that
they use in football is every time that the team sets up to kick a
field goal they move the goalpost back. It just seems like that's what
we're doing. First, as my friend from Vermont just said, we were told
we were going to Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. That didn't pan
out. We were told we had to remove a dictator in Saddam Hussein. Our
soldiers did that, and they did it magnificently. Then we were told we
had to stay until there were free elections. We had free elections.
Then we were told that we had to stay there; in fact, we not only had
to stay there, we had to increase our numbers there, we had to have a
surge so that we could reduce the violence so that the government would
have an opportunity, would have a chance to come together. And that's
exactly what our soldiers did. And despite that fact, we are still told
that we will continue to be there. This is just unimaginable.
Our soldiers have done everything that we have asked of them, and
much more, in an incredibly hostile environment, and yet they continue
to be told that they have to stay in Iraq. And for what?
[[Page H10607]]
I am convinced, after meeting with Dr. Salam al-Zubaie, the Deputy
Prime Minister, that the factions in Iraq will continue to fight, they
will continue to use America as a crutch for as long as they possibly
can. We gave them time. We did exactly what we said we would do. And
what did they do? They squandered that time. They continued to posture
for a better position, and they continue to do that today. Blood is
spilling, Iraqi blood, American blood, and they continue to posture.
Violence increases, and they continue to posture. They refuse to come
together. It is high time for us to allow Iraq to take over, to stand
up for itself. They will stand up when we stand down.
The other thing that was very amazing, when you see it, and we talk
about how much money we're spending there, we talk about the $16
million an hour, the $2 billion a week. And they sound like numbers
until you actually go there and you see the amount of equipment and you
see the amount of investment we are making there. And obviously that is
something that we have been doing and we will continue to do. But when
you think about the fights that we have here right on this floor, the
debates that we have on this floor about things like SCHIP, about
things like improving our infrastructure that's crumbling, about things
that are good domestically for our economy, and we don't do them. And
we discuss and continue to debate about the money, and yet we spend
billions and billions of dollars in Iraq.
I think while we do that, countries like China continue to take money
and they invest it in their economy. We need to make our investment in
our domestic economy, in our bridges, in our infrastructure, in our
economy, in our health care system, in education. Those are the things
that the American people want. Those are the things that we ran on last
year. Those are the things that we promised the American people. And
those are the things that we need to continue to work on.
I thank you thank you very much, my colleagues from the freshman
class, for being here today. And, Ms. Sutton, thank you very much for
bringing us here.
Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Representative Arcuri. That firsthand account
and your observations are very enlightening. We appreciate you bringing
them forward and, again, highlighting the fact that as we make this
choice and as the President opts to try and keep us in Iraq for 10
years, or beyond, it means there are other consequences. Beyond all of
those other consequences we talked about militarily and the effects on
our military, there are those domestic issues, Representative Shea-
Porter, that you point out and Mr. Arcuri points out that we will
continue to fall behind on. I think that the picture is becoming a
little bit more clear down here tonight that we need some comprehensive
thinking that is smart and effective. And the question of a responsible
redeployment and what that plan should look like is really the one that
we need to be working on.
With that, I want to pass it over to another great Member of the new
Congress, a freshman from Minnesota who I think is going to shed some
light on the Blackwater situation.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am really honored to join my members of
this freshman class. I am so proud to be a Member of the 110th
Congress.
I just wanted to point out that this week as we contemplate and as
we've seen the three reports, the GAO report, the report from General
Petraeus, the report from General Jones, we are at a point where we
have to make a big decision. The people of America and Iraq want our
troops to have a safe but clear end point to this conflict. The surge
has not been successful, as we see 11 of 18 legislative security and
economic benchmarks set down have not been met.
But I just wanted to talk about a very interesting and curious
development in this whole conflict, which is that part of the story of
the Iraq conflict is the contractors. Blackwater is the most well known
of them, but that's not the only one. There's DynCorp, there's Titan,
there's Casey, there's many of them. As a matter of fact, what we have
seen is a privatization of this conflict. We've seen the privatization
of this conflict as literally estimated at upwards of 150,000
contractors have been in Iraq. And the question is, since we've never
privatized a war, since we've always kept an essential governmental
function, which is defense of the Nation, within the firm hands of the
government and we've never really privatized a military conflict
before, what does all of this mean? Interestingly and sadly, we've seen
this privatization situation devolve into a very dangerous situation
which I believe has in many ways compromised national security and has
damaged the reputation of the United States and has led, in my view, to
a situation where the Iraqi Government, even though it is a government
under occupation, under U.S. military occupation, has had to make a
statement to throw Blackwater out of its country.
Now, think about that. This is a government that is not in full
control of its own country but has mustered itself and said, Look, in
order to go forward, this institution, Blackwater, must leave our
country. I just want to talk about this a little bit because I think
that it's an important part of the story and it needs to be told even
from the floor of Congress.
The recent incident that I'm talking about has caused the Iraqi
Government to revoke the license of Blackwater. This is the result of a
situation, of a killing of Iraqi citizens that happened on September
11, 2007 and the wounding of 14 others by a Blackwater USA security
company. Ostensibly, this private security company guards U.S. Embassy
personnel in Iraq. Blackwater USA is based in North Carolina and is one
of the largest of at least 28 different private security firms that
have received governmental contracts to work in Iraq, paid for by at
least $4 billion in taxpayer dollars.
This group, funded by American taxpayer dollars through their
contract, seems to hold very few American values, it seems to me,
except for making money, by some accounts as much as five times the
amount that our brave soldiers make. Five times the amount the average
soldier is making is what one of these contractors can make,
particularly one that was in Blackwater. According to one source, in
February 2004, Blackwater started training former Chilean commandos,
some of whom were serving during the Pinochet years in Chile, for duty
in Iraq. People who know the Pinochet regime know that this regime was
known for people disappearing in the country. Torture was routine.
Other news reports indicate that four of the guards killed in January
while working for a subcontractor had served in South Africa's security
forces during the apartheid era, and one of them had applied for
amnesty for crimes that he committed while operating under the
apartheid regime. Not good news.
Press reports further indicate that this latest incident was not
isolated, with Iraqi Interior Minister spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf
calling the episode the ``last and biggest mistake'' committed by
Blackwater.
Khalaf went on to say, ``Security contracts do not allow them to
shoot people randomly. They are here to protect personnel, not to shoot
people without reason.''
Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to win the hearts and minds of
the Iraqi people if we have cowboy mercenary vigilantes. Blackwater
seems to be accountable neither to the Iraqi Government, and there are
serious questions as to whether they're even accountable to the U.S.
Government. They are not subject to the Geneva Convention, which our
soldiers are. If accounts of this and other incidents prove to be
accurate, and of course due process is critically important, then the
Iraqi Government's actions to expel Blackwater from Iraq could indicate
the first concrete sign that a real government may exist in Baghdad.
Who knows. We'll see.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very critical that we continue to look
into this issue of private contractors. It is an important part of the
story of Iraq. It is a critical and fundamental part of this dialogue
that we're having. We can't privatize our Nation's national defense.
When we do, we lose control of these people.
Mercenary actions are not deemed sanctioned by U.N. charter. And to
hire a private mercenary army is something that we should not be
associated with. They call themselves security contractors, and yet
they have been involved
[[Page H10608]]
in major military actions in Najaf. Everybody remembers the horrific
incident that occurred in Fallujah that was succeeded by a major action
against that city. At this point I think it's important for us to pay
much closer attention to this situation and put some real
accountability on this situation.
I yield back at this time, but I do ask that we raise these important
issues and focus on exactly what this means for our country and our
national security.
Ms. SUTTON. I thank Representative Ellison for that addition to this
debate this evening. It's important that all of this be exposed to the
light of day so that we can make the inquiries that are appropriate as
well as the policies that make sense from this Chamber.
At this point, I would like to throw it back over to Representative
Carol Shea-Porter from New Hampshire. I think, Representative Shea-
Porter, you were going to share with us some statistics and information
from a report.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I am holding in my hands a report to Congress from September 6, 2007
called ``The Independent Commission Security Forces of Iraq.'' This is
retired General Jones. They did an absolutely wonderful job,
nonpartisan, and I'm very pleased to say that it seems incredibly
accurate and fair in all respects.
Here is a concern, or one of the many concerns that I have, and I
just want to read a couple of lines and talk about it. It says, Iraq's
central government in Baghdad, and this is page 39, does not have
national reach in terms of security, nor does it have a monopoly on use
of force, a defining characteristic of a functioning nation state.
Militias continue to play a prominent role and are seen by American and
Iraqi officials alike as posing almost as significant a threat to Iraqi
stability and security as al Qaeda in Iraq.
Now, isn't that fascinating? We hear them talk about al Qaeda, al
Qaeda, al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq on 9/11, 2001, and
yet we have militias roaming around and there is very little talk about
that.
Now, as this report states, if you have militias, it means that the
Iraqi Central Government is not in control of their streets. This is
where we have our soldiers, in the middle of a civil war. And this is
the reason that we've had ethnic cleansing and the other problems that
we're having.
I want to talk about the Iraqi political establishment for a moment.
Our troops have done everything they've been asked to do. They are
guarding the streets. And yes, violence has gone down where our troops
are, and it's a great credit to our troops, but I can tell you right
now that if you put 50 policemen and women on a corner of any major
city in America, or anywhere, crime would go down because these forces
do a terrific job, but it doesn't mean that you've changed the hearts
and minds of the people, the criminals. What we have here is an Iraqi
Government that has not stepped forward. And so we are relying on our
troops to not only control the violence in Baghdad, but also to run
everything.
The Iraqi Government, the Parliament, wanted to take 2 months off
this summer in the middle of this crisis. When the White House, Tony
Snow, was asked about the 2-month vacation, he said, well, it's 140
degrees there. And somebody said, well, aren't our troops in 140
degrees as well?
The Iraqi Parliament also, more than half of them, signed a petition
asking the United States to leave Iraq. Now, this is not leadership.
Our troops have waited for years for Iraqi leadership to step forward
and run their country.
{time} 1715
We cannot ask our troops to not only be the police there, be the cop
on the beat there, but also to be the politicians there. If the Iraqi
Government will not, cannot, step up, we have to finally say we have to
step down. It has been just too long.
So picture that, what it is like, and you will understand why 100,000
Iraqis have been leaving every month and why there is more than 2
million people who are now out of the Iraqi borders. They have lost
their middle class. They have lost anybody who could help the society.
They have fled. And you understand why, when you think about militias
and you think about the lack of Iraqi political leadership. You didn't
hear very much about that coming out of the White House. Ask them to
name the Iraqi politicians, the leaders, who are going to take over,
and ask when. Because they can't say when. They can't name who is going
to take over. We cannot leave our troops there indefinitely until the
Iraqis decide to find political reconciliation.
That is the problem. As long as we have our troops there, yes, we can
tamp down the violence where our troops are. But we must have a
government. That report shows that they have militia wandering around
and that the Iraqi Government has not stepped up to the task. We are in
our fifth year, Americans know that, our fifth year of our treasure and
our blood of our people. It is time to stop.
Ms. SUTTON. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire. It is a
sad state of affairs, but it goes back to the point that we have heard
here tonight, and that is that unity in Iraq, really, at the end of the
day, is going to be determined by the people of Iraq. We all know that
our military has performed valiantly and selflessly and that they are
true American heroes. But as you point out, it is not fair to keep them
trapped in the middle of a civil war and refuse to acknowledge that all
that has been discussed here tonight is going on. That is not a prudent
plan. I think it is time. We have heard the call when we go home and
talk to our constituents. It is time for a plan to responsibly
redeploy. That is what the American people need from our President.
I will share just a few statistics with you that sort of buttress
this need. We know that there was a great rollout when we had this so-
called surge introduced as a new way forward. But let me just shed some
light on some of the results. In June, July and August of 2007, it
marked the bloodiest summer so far U.S. troops in Iraq have had, with
264 soldiers killed. U.S. casualties in Iraq are 56 percent higher this
year than they were at this time in 2006. Since January of this year,
we have lost 761 brave servicemen and women to the war in Iraq.
By the way, I should say that these statistics are as of September
10. I have fear they have grown since then. As of September 10, 3,759
U.S. troops have been killed and more than 27,770 have been wounded in
Iraq since it began in March 2003. Think about that. Think about the
cost in lives. Think about the cost in the casualties and the injuries
that our soldiers are facing for the rest of their lives in many cases,
the costs to them, which is unfathomable and enormous, and the cost to
the American people as we do what we must do, and that is provide them
with the health care and the resources they need and to fulfill the
promise that we make to them when we send them into harm's way. We must
take care of our veterans.
We also learn that, and you pointed this out, Representative Shea-
Porter, that in Iraq, opinions are also that they would like our troops
to be responsibly deploying. Just to share some information from a new
poll that was jointly conducted and released by ABC News, BBC News and
Japan's NHK, 47 percent of Iraqis want American forces and their
coalition allies to leave the country immediately. That is a 12 percent
increase over March. Remember, our soldiers are there in that
environment. The polls showed that every person interviewed in Baghdad
and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Bush recently visited
and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security.
Seventy percent believe security has deteriorated in the areas where
the U.S. surge troops were located. Between 67 and 70 percent say that
the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue,
reconstruction and economic development. Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis
say that attacking coalition forces is ``acceptable,'' more than three
times higher than when polled in February of 2004. That is the
environment we are keeping our troops in. The President's plan is to do
so for the very foreseeable future.
It is time for a plan of responsible redeployment. Our military
should not be asked to try to control a civil war, a sectarian civil
war. We have heard all
[[Page H10609]]
the components of all the factions and all the dynamics that are going
on in Iraq. Just think about our troops sitting in the middle of that
and doing everything they are asked to do. We know from the report that
Representative Shea-Porter referenced, and we know from the GAO
reports. They confirm that our strategy is not working and that this
conflict begs for a political solution, not a military one; though the
United States can play a constructive role, and we will, and we have
done so by providing, through high cost and blood and money, an
opportunity to embrace a different way to the Iraqi people. We also
know the toll that that country has, along the way, encountered.
Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they believe that the U.S.
should withdraw some or all troops from Iraq. Sixty percent of
Americans say the U.S. should set a timetable to withdraw our forces
from Iraq and should ``stick to that timetable regardless of what is
going on in Iraq.'' That is not because we don't care. That is because
we are looking at the evidence, and we are trying to make the
responsible decision for our troops, for the safety of this country and
for domestic policy.
At this point, I would like to turn it over to Representative Shea-
Porter, and we will be wrapping up here in a few moments.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I would also like to point out that this really is a
national security issue for the United States of America. General Peter
Pace was asked if he was comfortable with the ability of our Nation to
respond to an emerging world threat. He paused and he said, ``No, I am
not comfortable.''
We have our troops bogged down in Iraq. We do have enemies around the
world, no question about it, but our military is strained. We know that
the troops could not stay at this pace past March anyway, so it is
natural that the President would call to bring back some of the troops
in March. It is not really progress. It is just acknowledging that we
have to have them back. But here is the issue: If you know there is a
burglar in your neighborhood, the first thing you do is you lock your
own door. We didn't do that. We went to Iraq instead of locking our own
door. We didn't even pass the 9/11 recommendations. The 110th Congress
had to take care of that business. So, finally, we are going to be
inspecting cargo from airplanes, and we are going to be inspecting
cargo that comes from overseas, and we are going to inspect 100 percent
of it after a period of time. That should have been done immediately.
We should have beefed up homeland security, locked our doors, so to
speak, and then worked with other nations to catch terrorists. They
were ready.
On 9/12/01, we had the world's sympathy and empathy. They were ready
to work with us to catch these horrible terrorists. Instead, we went to
Iraq, and now our brave troops are bogged down there. The Iraqis have
suffered enough. It is time to bring them home responsibly and to start
looking at building up our troop strength again so that we can respond
to anyplace around the world that we might need to be.
Ms. SUTTON. Well said, Representative Shea-Porter.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to close and yield back the balance of our
time.
____________________