[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1223-S1226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ WAR
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first of all, I welcome this opportunity
to talk about the current status of the involvement of the United
States in Iraq. I am glad we are having this discussion. I start by
thanking the troops for their incredible service to our country and the
incredible work they are doing, and I think this Congress, by words and
deeds, has shown its support for our troops. The budget we provided
last year provides the resources to take care of our veterans and the
funds to take care of our active military. That is what we should be
doing.
But we have now been in Iraq for many years. Several years ago I was
in Iraq. I had a chance to visit our troops and take a look at what was
happening on the ground. I saw then that we didn't have the right
equipment there; that the administration had sent our troops without
having the right support. I was proud of the action the Congress took
in providing the military support and the type of equipment our troops
needed.
But the discussion of what is best for our troops is whether we have
the right mission in Iraq. This campaign is now entering its sixth
year. We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. We have
now spent a half trillion dollars directly on our war in Iraq. Almost
4,000 Americans have been killed, almost 30,000 have been wounded, 67
Marylanders have given their lives, and over 800 have been injured.
Many of these injuries are life changing.
I have had a chance to visit Andrews Air Force Base as our wounded
soldiers come home, and I have been able to see firsthand the type of
injuries they sustained. They will have to deal with them for the rest
of their lives.
When we look at the strength of al-Qaida, our experts tell us they
are stronger today than they have ever been. So we haven't accomplished
our mission as far as dealing with the threat against the United
States.
Let's talk about the facts. The inescapable conclusion is that
President Bush was wrong in sending our troops to Iraq in the first
place. I am proud I voted against that authorization when I was in the
other body. Our troops are involved in trying to referee a civil war.
That is their primary focus. Yes, we are fighting terrorists, and we
need to continue to do that, but the primary need for American troops
is to deal with the civil unrest that is currently taking place in
Iraq.
The costs, as I explained before, in lives has been our deepest loss,
but also the dollars--a half trillion dollars. Think about what we
could have done with that money. I think about schools in Baltimore
that should be replaced. We could have replaced every school with the
money that has been spent so our children could get a proper education.
We could have dealt with the energy crisis in this country and built
the transit systems we need and become energy independent so we are not
dependent on foreign oil in the Middle East. We could have done
something about the health care system in this country.
A year ago, Diamonte Driver died in Prince George's County, MD,
because he couldn't get dental care. We are suffering an economic
downturn right now because we have large debt, in part, and that debt
is accumulating because we are not only spending a half trillion
dollars, we are not paying for it. We are borrowing the money. It is
making it even more dangerous for our economy.
So I know there has been a lot of debate on this floor about whether
the President's surge policy has worked. I must tell my colleagues, I
think our soldiers are performing, as I said earlier, in a great
manner. When you put American troops in a country, they are going to do
their job and they are going to provide the type of help to that
country and to its communities that American troops are trained to do.
But the problem is the mission is wrong. The surge has not worked in
accomplishing the U.S. mission that is in the best interests of this
country.
I remember when the President said: We are going to have the surge
because we are going to provide stability in the country so the Iraqi
Government can take control and we can bring our troops home. That was
the mission. That is what we are trying to accomplish, but we haven't
accomplished that. Let's look at the facts. Look at the facts.
Violence in Iraq continues today. The majority leader mentioned the
headlines in today's paper. Violence continues. It is a dangerous
country. Suicide bombers operate at will. The troop levels were
supposed to be reduced. In January of 2007 we had 130,000 American
troops in Iraq. Today we have in excess of 140,000. There is now a
pause in reducing our troop levels. We haven't been able to reduce the
troop levels. On governance, on the Iraqi Government representing the
people of Iraq, they set their own benchmarks. We didn't set them. Of
18 benchmarks, only 3 have been accomplished. So, no, we haven't
accomplished the mission the President established for why we needed
our troops in Iraq.
But let's take a look at our military and foreign policy experts.
They tell us our military today is spread too thin, that we aren't
looking after the best interests of America's military interests. Talk
to our people who run our National Guard and Reserve units.
I had a chance to meet with members of the Maryland National Guard.
They have, again, answered the call. People of the Maryland National
Guard have been deployed regularly into Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am
told today we don't have the equipment in our National Guard to
continue the proper training missions because the equipment was left in
Iraq. We haven't replaced that. Also, recruitment is going to be more
difficult, and we need to deal with the reintegration of the National
Guard people who are coming back to Maryland in our community, and that
is going to take a real effort. Now they have to be prepared for
redeployment.
We have lost our focus, according to our experts on the war against
terror. We should have taken care of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We
haven't done that. Now Afghanistan looks as if it is moving in the
wrong direction because we are not focusing on the threat, which is
terrorism. Instead, we have our troops dealing with a civil
[[Page S1224]]
war in Iraq. There is no disagreement among the foreign policy experts
that America has lost its leadership internationally and is galvanizing
the international community to help us in the war against terror. We
have lost that focus. So our mission is wrong.
The question, though, is where do we go from here. Well, if we want
to follow President Bush's policy, we will have a permanent presence of
American troops in Iraq. I think that is the wrong policy. I believe
the people of Maryland and of this Nation believe it is the wrong
policy. The President's policy is basically waiting out the burning out
of the civil war. We know 4 million Iraqis are displaced, some in the
country, some outside the country. That is not the right answer for the
people of Iraq, and it is certainly not the right answer for U.S.
policy.
So we have an alternative. Senator Feingold has brought to us a bill
which I believe warrants our support. It is the right mission for our
troops and our Nation. Fighting terrorism, I am for that. That is what
we should be doing. Protecting our troops, that is what we should be
doing. Helping the Iraqis in the training of their own military, that
is what we should be doing. It focuses our mission on what is in the
best interests of the United States. We need a political solution, not
a military solution, for the people of Iraq. The Feingold resolution
acknowledges that.
We need to work with the international community. We work best when
we work with the international community. The international community
is wondering what we are doing in Iraq.
The Feingold bill does not place a time limit on the withdrawal of
U.S. troops. It is an honorable and orderly process for us to complete
a mission in Iraq. I believe it is in the best interests of the United
States. I believe it is the right policy for our soldiers, and I
believe it deserves the support of this body.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his excellent
remarks and for his leadership on this issue. It has been very helpful
during a very tough battle that we have to keep fighting.
We had an interesting debate yesterday on the two bills I have
offered with the majority leader. I know some of my colleagues
expressed concern that we were spending too much time on this issue.
Well I, for one, am pleased we are able to discuss one of the most
pressing problems facing this country. Maybe now that they have allowed
us to have this debate, the Republicans will allow us to actually
consider and vote on these bills.
While I appreciate the chance to have this debate, I would like to
take this chance to respond to some of the statements that have been
made on the other side. I have actually been accused of ``legislating
defeat in Iraq'' or other variations on that theme, and somehow trying
to micromanage the job of the commanders. Actually, we have already
accomplished our military mission in Iraq: Removing Saddam Hussein. I
am interested in achieving victory in the global effort to combat al-
Qaida. We have to make a choice. The Army Chief of Staff has been clear
that ``the numbers of forces we have committed in Iraq now increases
our level of strategic risk.''
So what does that mean? It means we must choose between letting the
Iraqi people resolve their sectarian disputes on their own or, on the
other hand, exhausting our troops in Iraq and losing ground in the
global fight against al-Qaida.
Senator Inhofe said my bill demanding a strategy to defeat al-Qaida
wasn't needed because we already have a plan to defeat al-Qaida. He
failed to explain why, though. If we already have a strategy to defeat
al-Qaida, why is it that al-Qaida has regenerated and reconstituted
itself and is planning more attacks on our homeland? Admiral Mullen has
been quite clear that under our current strategy, Afghanistan is a
second priority where we only ``do what we can''--do what we can. In
other words, we are so bogged down in Iraq, we don't have the forces to
respond to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. If this is a
strategy, it sure isn't working, which is why the majority leader and I
want to require the administration to develop a plan that prioritizes
the fight against al-Qaida and protecting ourselves at home over an
endless war in Iraq.
Senators Inhofe and Lieberman have claimed that we do already have
political reconciliation in Iraq and that we have seen benchmark
legislation in the Iraqi Parliament. Yes, a debaathification law has
passed, an amnesty law has passed, and the provincial powers election
power law passed. Yes, we have seen movement in the Iraqi Parliament
after waiting for more than 4 years. It is my great hope that the laws
recently passed will bring the Sunnis fully into the political process.
But as we well know, passing a law is one thing, but actually seeing it
successfully implemented is another, particularly given the country's
weak national government.
I think national reconciliation still looks far off. The passage of
what the administration is calling ``benchmark'' laws does not ensure
society-wide sectarian reconciliation. There are still significant
concerns about how the local efforts we have supported to bring about
declining violence will actually be integrated into the national
framework. To illustrate this, the Sunni Awakening has taken tens of
thousands of former insurgent Sunni militia fighters and provided them
with U.S. funding in exchange for helping combat al-Qaida and Iraq. But
to what extent we can rely on the long-term loyalties of these fighters
is a very open question. We do know, however, that this policy actually
risks increasing distrust between the local Sunnis and the national
government, which of course is led primarily by Shiites.
I would just like to ask, if Iraqis have agreed to political
reconciliation, as Senator Inhofe suggested, well then doesn't that
mean we have achieved the objectives of the surge and we can start
bringing the troops home? When does the other side think we can bring
the troops home? They never talk about that. Five years? Ten years?
Twenty years? One hundred years? What kind of success is that?
After more than 4 years of waiting for the Iraqi Government to make
progress, we have lost nearly 4,000 Americans, with no end in sight and
no clear path for a reconciliation that incorporates all aspects and
elements of Iraqi society.
Now, another argument we have heard is it has been suggested that
Iraq would collapse or that genocide would occur if U.S. troops leave.
Of course, that assumes our military presence there is actually helping
the situation rather than simply postponing an inevitable day of
reckoning. If we bring our troops out of this quagmire, Iraqis and
their neighbors would have to confront the crisis head on. Now, I am
not calling for the United States to abandon Iraq, but there is simply
no way we can fix the mess we have made without a legitimate political
settlement.
A U.S. redeployment would actually put new pressure on Iraqis and on
countries in the region to engage productively and to make the decision
as to whether a full-fledged civil war is really in the interests of
Iraq or its neighboring countries. I suspect--I really do feel strongly
about this, having looked at this issue for many years in both the
Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee--that if
these countries were faced with that decision, they would actually try
harder to reconcile their differences peacefully rather than further
ignite tensions.
Some Members of this body seem to believe the war in Iraq is between
U.S. troops on the one side and al-Qaida on the other. That is not what
is going on. In fact, that is dangerous, wishful thinking. The recent
patterns of violence in Iraq actually confirm what the intelligence
community has said all along: that the war in Iraq is sectarian and
intrasectarian and far from the oversimplified ``us versus them'' that
proponents of an endless military engagement in Iraq continue to
describe. Moreover, in mixed areas such as Mosul, violence is actually
increasing. And in the south, the increased violence is among Shiites,
and reduction in areas such as Anbar, which is almost entirely Sunni or
in Baghdad, where sectarian cleansing has already occurred, do not
represent a diminishment of the underlying tensions that could explode
at any time.
Contrary to what we heard yesterday, Iraq simply is not the central
[[Page S1225]]
front on the war on terrorism. To the extent to which there is such a
front in this very global conflict, it is clearly Pakistan and
Afghanistan. No rational reading of press reports, independent studies
or our own intelligence could possibly conclude otherwise. While the
administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself
along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That sounds like a big mistake.
That sounds like a real strategic error in an international battle
against terrorism. Yet far too many people in the administration and my
colleagues somehow believe Iraq is what it is all about. What a
terrible strategic mistake.
Early this month, the DNI testified before Congress that the central
leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-Qaida's most
dangerous component. And a few months ago, the DNI again repeated the
intelligence community's assessment that over the last 2 years ``Al
Qaeda's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core
operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland''--
in the homeland, our homeland, our country, the United States of
America.
The DNI also testified that al-Qaida ``is improving the last key
aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: The identification, training,
and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland''--in this
country.
Meanwhile, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas--or FATA region--
in Pakistan is serving as a staging ground for al-Qaida in support of
the Taliban and providing it with a base similar to the one it used to
have across the border in Afghanistan.
Over the past year, as we all know, we have seen an unprecedented
rise of suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining ground in
Afghanistan, and while we may be sending an additional 3,200 marines to
Afghanistan in the near future, we have been fighting for far too long
there with too few soldiers and too few reconstruction funds. The price
of that neglect is a dramatic resurgence of militants that must be
urgently addressed.
Yesterday, a Washington Post article noted that:
More foreign soldiers and Afghan civilians died in Taliban-
related fighting last year than in any year since U.S. and
coalition forces ousted the extremist Islamic militia, which
ruled most of the country, in 2001. Military officials expect
the coming year to be just as deadly, if not more so, as the
Taliban becomes more adept militarily and more formidable in
its deployment of suicide bombers and roadside explosives.
With the Joint Chiefs saying: ``In Iraq we do what we must and in
Afghanistan we do what we can,'' it is no wonder Afghanistan is
teetering on the edge. It has been neglected, shoved to the back burner
so the President can pursue an open-ended war in Iraq.
I remind my colleagues it was from Afghanistan, not Iraq, that the 9/
11 attacks were planned, and it was under the Taliban regime, which is
once again gaining ground, that al-Qaida was able to flourish so
freely. This is the actual position, this is the actual situation in
terms of this global fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. It is
not all about Iraq.
Al-Qaida affiliates from Africa to Southeast Asia pose a significant
terrorist threat. While we have been so myopically fixated on Iraq, the
threat from an al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa has grown and now,
according again to the testimony of the Director of National
Intelligence, ``represents a significant threat to the United States
and European interests in the region.''
Since its merger with al-Qaida in September 2006, it has expanded its
targets to include the United States, United Nations, and other
interests, and it likely got a further boost when al-Qaida leadership
announced last November that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group united
with al-Qaida under AQIM's leadership. Its possible reach covers
Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, Libya, and other countries.
Meanwhile, it is using deadly tactics that suggest it is acquiring
knowledge and help from the war in Iraq, basically a training ground
for those who get exported to attack us.
Al-Qaida has affiliates around the world--in Saudi Arabia, United
Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, where al-Qaida poses a ``growing
threat,'' the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. And a few weeks ago,
there were more arrests in Europe. None, not one of these developments
has been prevented by the war in Iraq.
We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-
Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with
dangerous affiliates around the world. The administration claims al-
Qaida in Iraq may be on the run, but al-Qaida has not abandoned its
efforts to fight us globally. In fact, we are watching al-Qaida
strengthen and develop its affiliates around the world, while we remain
bogged down in Iraq. How foolish can we be to allow them to
reconstitute all over the world as they watch us unable to extricate
ourselves from a mistake which was, of course, going into Iraq the way
we did.
We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction
program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where al-
Qaida and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in
Southeast Asia, and along the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and
we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just
rely on military power to get the job done.
I would like to turn now briefly to the impact of the Iraq war on our
military and National Guard. There is nobody in the Senate who cares
more about this than the Presiding Officer. I will start by repeating
what GEN George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said yesterday
in congressional testimony:
The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war
have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current
fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to
properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our
flexibility for an uncertain future.
Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq, as we all know, are now in their
third or fourth tours of duty. Approximately 95 percent of the Army
National Guard's combat battalions and special operations units have
been mobilized since 9/11.
Mr. President, 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq and over
420,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said
before, nearly 4,000 of our men and women have been killed in Iraq, and
over 27,000 have been wounded.
The Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq
without seriously damaging the military. Young officers are leaving the
service at an alarming rate.
Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since the Vietnam
war. Every active Army brigade currently not deployed is unprepared to
perform its wartime mission.
More than two-thirds of Active Duty Army brigades are unready for
missions because of manpower and equipment shortages, most of which, of
course, can be attributed to Iraq.
There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or
crises around the world.
This failure to prioritize correctly has left vital missions
unattended. Natural disaster response, U.S. border security, and
international efforts to combat al-Qaida are all suffering due to the
strain on military forces caused by poor strategy and failed leadership
in Iraq.
In addition, thousands of our troops have, as we well know, returned
home with invisible wounds, such as PTSD and TBI, traumatic brain
injury, which will have a long-term impact on veterans and their
families. These invisible wounds are not counted in the casualty
numbers, but we will be struggling with them for generations.
I haven't even touched on the massive debt we are running up to pay
for this war. We are spending approximately $10 billion a month in
Iraq. Congress has appropriated over $525 billion for this war, and the
debt keeps mounting.
We heard eloquent floor statements yesterday on this side about how
these costs are affecting our ability to address other priorities. I
will not repeat all of what was said, but I do want to note that the
war in Iraq keeps us from adequately addressing critical gaps in our
homeland security and law enforcement. While we had 92,000 more troops
to the Army and Marine Corps, the city of New York has 5,000 fewer
police officers on the beat than it did on September 11, 2001.
This year, we will spend a fifth of our $740 billion ``national
security budget'' on Iraq, twice what the Federal Government spends
defending our Nation.
[[Page S1226]]
Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut grants for first responders,
and the Coast Guard is struggling with an inadequate force size.
It doesn't make sense. It simply doesn't make sense. The American
people know that, which is why they voted the way they did last
November. More than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of a phased
withdrawal. They don't want to pass this problem off to the next
President and another Congress, and they sure don't want another
American servicemember to die or lose a limb while elected
representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of
their constituents.
Polls continue to show voters strongly oppose the war in Iraq, and
that is one of the top issues on which they will be voting. A recent
Washington Post/ABC poll found that 65 percent of Americans disapprove
of the situation in Iraq and 56 percent disapprove strongly. The same
poll also found this is the second most important issue to voters in
November, behind the economy and jobs. And a recent Gallup poll showed
a majority of Americans, 56 percent, do not believe the surge is
working and want a timetable to get out of Iraq. Those Americans need
to be heard, and that is what we are trying to do with this important
debate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________