[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2776-S2779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the country is consumed with the 
appearance this week of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker from 
Iraq. This is our annual report. Companies make annual reports. People 
like Warren Buffett call in to Omaha, NE, to shareholders of Berkshire 
Hathaway to talk about the state of his corporation and what the 
prospects are of the future. It has become an annual occurrence here on 
Capitol Hill that the two leaders from the diplomatic and military side 
come and make their report to Congress.
  This is indeed the beginning of the sixth year of this war. This war 
in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II. By the end of this summer, 
it will have lasted longer than World War I and World War II combined. 
We have lost over 4,000 of our best and bravest, our

[[Page S2777]]

men and women in uniform who have given their lives in this conflict--
30,000 injured. Many with permanent injuries have returned from this 
battlefield.
  Our military has been stretched to the absolute limit. There is no 
doubt in my mind that the U.S. military is the best in the world. You 
only have to meet them, you only have to understand the challenges they 
have faced and the success they have shown to know that. But it 
troubles me that in the midst of this debate about how long we can stay 
in Iraq, we are actually saying: How long can our military stay in Iraq 
with the support of the American people?
  An honest appraisal of the American military today, in the sixth year 
of this war, will tell you they have paid a heavy price beyond the 
deaths and injuries. There is a serious challenge facing our military. 
The leaders--General Cody, who testified just a few weeks ago, and 
General McCaffrey--have told us that Iraq has pushed the U.S. Army to 
the breaking point. That is a sobering appraisal by the military itself 
of what this war has done to our great military.
  Just the other day, the Army reported increased stress, anxiety, and 
depression for 27 percent of soldiers returning to Iraq for a third and 
fourth tour. Those of us who have been there to meet with soldiers, as 
I have on three different occasions, will tell you that these 
extraordinarily long deployments of our soldiers are virtually 
unprecedented since World War II, and they have taken their toll.
  Our soldiers today are usually married. In previous wars, they were 
not. So they go to battle remembering that they have left behind 
spouses and children. On a daily basis, they are in contact by e-mail. 
They know if the car doesn't start. They know when the baby has to go 
to the doctor. They know when there is a problem paying the bills. They 
know it in real time.
  In addition to the stress of being in battle and in combat, they have 
the added stress of separation from their families and the knowledge 
that for many of them it will be 15 months in deployment before they 
can come home.
  A lieutenant colonel from Georgia, a career man, said to me as I 
left: Senator, we have to do something about these deployments. They 
are just entirely too long. And the period between deployments isn't 
long enough. He talked about leaving Georgia with his daughter in the 
fifth grade and returning after his deployment to find her in the 
seventh grade. He missed a year of her life.
  He also talked about the fact that bringing these troops home for a 
year or sometimes even less before they are sent away again doesn't 
give them time to rest, to reunite with their families, to be 
reequipped, retrained, and to bring in new recruits and integrate them 
into the unit. We turn them around so quickly because this 
administration, and those who support it, look beyond the obvious, take 
for granted that the military will be there time and time again, and 
pursue a foreign policy which, sadly, has been a misguided policy from 
the start.
  I will recall that evening as long as I serve in this body, in 
October of 2002, when we cast that fateful vote to give President 
George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, an authority which he 
used. It was a historic night and a sad night for many of us. Twenty-
three Senators, 1 Republican and 22 Democrats, voted against the 
authorization to invade Iraq. I recall that evening believing that this 
President was poised and prepared and ready to go into Iraq. He had 
misled through statements--inaccurate statements. The American people 
were misled about the circumstance involving that invasion.
  Do you recall the fear we had? We were told about weapons of mass 
destruction--biological, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons. We were 
told Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the terrible tragedy of 9/11. 
We were told his continued presence in the Middle East made it more 
dangerous for Israel, for many of our closest friends and allies. We 
were told he was developing predator aircraft that could be sent in 
remote ways to drop these weapons of mass destruction all around the 
Middle East, if not beyond.
  Virtually every one of those statements made by this administration 
prior to the invasion of Iraq was wrong, inaccurate, and was proven to 
have been false. America was misled into this war.
  That does not diminish in any way the bravery and courage and 
determination of our troops, but it says that the policymakers, many of 
whom are finally going to leave the scene in a few months, have to 
accept the verdict of history that they were wrong. They were wrong to 
lead us into this war, and the price we have paid has been a heavy 
price for that deception and that mistake.
  They come now and tell us that even if we were wrong getting into 
this war, even if it lasted far longer than anyone anticipated, even if 
the cost of this war in human lives and actual dollars went 
dramatically beyond anyone's expectation, we have to ``stay the 
course.'' We have to stay the course. How many times have we been told 
by these military leaders and by the President that when the Iraqis are 
prepared to stand up with their own defense force, America's troops can 
stand down? I have heard that until I am weary of it.
  Years ago, when I went to Iraq, I was greeted then by General 
Petraeus, who was not in charge but was part of the leadership there, 
and he took me off for a little exercise at the airfield to show me 
what the troops were doing--the Iraqi troops. I couldn't tell you 
whether it demonstrated skill or not. I am not an expert in military 
deployment by any means. But a handful of Iraqi soldiers, whose faces 
were hooded so they couldn't be identified by other Iraqis, went 
through the routine of a drill. I suppose it was undertaken to impress 
us. It didn't. I thought to myself: I will believe the Iraqi military 
has really reached the point of professionalism when they start 
replacing American soldiers and American soldiers start coming home.
  Year after weary year, we have invested millions and millions of 
dollars in the training of their soldiers and their police. Yet 140,000 
of our soldiers are still rising this morning and every morning risking 
their lives for the people of Iraq.
  I sometimes wonder if the Iraqi people have really come to the basic 
conclusion as to whether they are a nation worth fighting for. I do not 
know the answer to that. When you hear what is going on in Iraq 
recently, where 1,000 Iraqi soldiers turned and deserted in battle, it 
is not encouraging. It tells me that despite all the time, all the 
money, and all the bloodshed, this war continues unabated.
  I know now that many want to see this administration leave and hand 
over the quagmire of Iraq to the next President. That next President, 
whoever that person may be, will inherit two wars from this 
administration--in Iraq and Afghanistan--a recession, a situation where 
health care across America is in crisis, an energy challenge the likes 
of which we have never seen in this country, an environmental challenge 
of global warming that challenges not only our Nation but the entire 
world, entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare on the 
ropes, and, unfortunately, a country that needs real leadership. That 
is the legacy of the Bush administration.
  For General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to come before us and 
talk about staying the course for another 9 or 10 months, to me betrays 
the obvious. We have given the Iraqi people more than any nation can 
ask, in terms of human life and treasure. It is estimated that the 
total cost of this war will be somewhere in the range of $3 trillion. 
What could we have done with that money in America had it been spent 
for America's strength? Just imagine: We could have provided 5.7 
million Americans with health coverage each year since the war began, 
hired 430,000 new teachers across America, built 1 million units of 
affordable housing, and provided 4-year scholarships at State 
universities for 4.7 million students. Instead, the money has been sunk 
in Iraq.
  Just so the record is straight, the Iraqis are not paupers. They have 
bountiful sources of oil that they sell. While we labor with one of the 
largest deficits--in fact, the largest deficit in the history of the 
United States, a debt, a mortgage we are passing on to our children--
while we labor with that and are asked by the President to send another 
$100 billion into Iraq with the next request coming in just a few days, 
the Iraqis today have a surplus in their

[[Page S2778]]

treasury of over $25 billion. We are sacrificing in America to send 
money to Iraq to rebuild their country while they are building a 
surplus in their treasury from their oil revenues. What is wrong with 
this picture? There is no earthly explanation for that, and it is a 
fact.
  I think, too, of what this means in the long term for the next 
President. That next President is going to inherit a terrible 
situation, finding an honorable way out of Iraq. I notice when the 
Republicans refer to that they always talk about a precipitous 
withdrawal. No one is calling for that. But the Democratic candidates 
for President are talking about bringing our troops home. I do not 
believe there is any other way for the Iraqis to be convinced that this 
is their nation and their future and their responsibility. As long as 
they can dial 9-1-1 and order up the best and bravest soldiers in the 
world to come from America and defend them, they are not going to 
accept their responsibility and do what is necessary.
  Meanwhile, our military is devastated by this war. West Point-
educated officers are leaving the Army in record numbers. Between 2001 
and 2004, there was a doubling of the Army's divorce rate and a 
dramatic increase in suicide among the members of the military, 
particularly from the National Guard. In addition to that, we know we 
are waiving requirements for recruits. One out of eight new Army 
recruits has a criminal record, some with serious charges. We are 
lowering the requirements for basic education to bring in recruits. We 
are offering thousands of dollars to 19-year-olds fresh out of high 
school if they will just sign up to be in the Army. That is not good 
for the future of our country. It is not good for the future of our 
military.
  We know that an estimated 90,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, 
and maybe more, innocent people caught in the crossfire of a war. We 
know there are literally millions of Iraqi refugees, and shamefully the 
United States has been unwilling to even accept Iraqi refugees who have 
risked their lives for our troops and our safety. It is just 
unconscionable that countries around the world are accepting these 
refugees and the United States, which has needed them and used them, 
refuses to accept them. It is a fact.
  We have dangerously emboldened Iran, which is moving closer to the 
development of nuclear weapons with this morning's announcement. In 
fact, it was actually Iran that helped broker an end to the recent 
violence in Basra.
  If this invasion of Iraq was determined to show the strength of the 
United States, it is hard to show while we are still there 6 years 
later with no end in sight. If this invasion of Iraq was designed to 
diminish the power of Iran in the Middle East, it is hard to believe 
anyone could make that assertion today, with proof to back it up. That 
is the reality of what we face.
  When I hear Senator McCain and Republican leaders talk about staying 
the course, I understand--and I hope Americans do--that we need to 
change the course. We need to change the direction of this war. We need 
to start to bring our brave soldiers home to the victor's welcome they 
deserve. We need to start to say to the Iraqis: Stand up and defend 
your own country. We need to start extricating ourselves from Iraq so 
this money we are now spending to build Iraq and make it stronger can 
give us strength right here at home. Instead of creating jobs in Iraq, 
we should be creating good-paying jobs right here in America, jobs that 
can't be outsourced, jobs that make a decent paycheck with benefits and 
health care and a promise of a good pension. We should be investing in 
this country's schools, in this country's hospitals, in this country's 
infrastructure, and the Iraqis should use their oil revenues to 
strengthen their own country and come together and make the hard 
political decisions which they have avoided.
  I will close and turn it over to my colleague, Senator Cardin from 
Maryland, by telling you that the debate will continue, and in a few 
weeks the President's supplemental request will be before us. It is 
another opportunity for us to engage this Chamber in a debate. I know 
and we all know that the majority of Republicans refuse to join us in 
talking about the change in direction in this war. We know as well that 
this President will veto anything that changes his policies. He is 
determined to leave office with Iraq in the same condition that we know 
it today, with no change in basic policy before us.
  The time is coming and coming soon--in November--when the American 
people have the last word. Finally, after 4 years, they get a chance to 
speak. They get a chance to pick a leader, to change the direction of 
this country in the right way, to make certain we have economic 
policies that build America and make it stronger--our families and our 
businesses--and to make certain we have a new policy in Iraq which 
really focuses on capturing Osama bin Laden, beating back the al-Qaida 
wherever they are found--in Pakistan or Afghanistan--making America 
safe from terrorism, and stopping what has been a longstanding and 
negative impact of this President's policy in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me compliment and thank the 
assistant majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, for his 
consistent comments with regard to the U.S. role in Iraq. He has made 
it clear that the U.S. interest has not been served by these last 5 
years, that we have lost our focus on the war on terror. As he pointed 
out, we have real concerns, internationally, about terrorism, and we 
have been distracted, particularly in Afghanistan, because of the focus 
on Iraq.
  He pointed out very clearly that the United States has invested so 
much--the lives of our soldiers, the cost to the taxpayers, those who 
have come back wounded. And what have we done this for? These soldiers 
deserve the right mission: that we concentrate on dealing with the war 
against terror, that we have the Iraqis take responsibility for their 
own country, particularly in the midst of civil war. A lot of this is 
just Iraqis fighting Iraqis--Shiites fighting Shiites for power--and 
the United States has sustained fighters on both sides, in some cases. 
This is so counterproductive to U.S. interests.
  I congratulate the Senator and thank him for continuing to bring out 
these issues. We hope in the next 10 months there will be some changes. 
We also understand we have to transition to a different mission, 
considering the type of sacrifices that have been made by our troops 
and the taxpayers of this country. I thank him very much for his 
leadership.
  Madam President, I was part of the Foreign Relations Committee 
yesterday when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before 
our committee. When I had the time, I started to thank, on behalf of 
the people of Maryland, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and all 
the soldiers and all the diplomats who have served in Iraq. They have 
served with great distinction. I am humbled by their skills and 
sacrifices. I acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices that have been made 
by their families. But I must tell you, they deserve the right mission, 
what is in the best interests of the United States. How should we judge 
that progress? It is an interesting point, as to whether we have made 
satisfactory progress in Iraq.
  Let me go back to January 10, 2007, when the President brought 
forward his ``New Way Forward in Iraq.'' His own words were that:

       If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help 
     the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten 
     the day our troops begin coming home.

  One of the reasons for the surge was to reduce our troop levels. But 
if we look at the presurge troop levels, it was 132,000 Americans; at 
the height of the surge last July, 160,000; and today, we have more 
than 140,000. We learned yesterday that General Petraeus believes we 
will be at that 140,000 level for the indefinite future, that there 
cannot be a commitment made at this stage to reduce our troop levels 
below 140,000. So at the end of the day we have more troops in Iraq 
rather than less.
  The President stated in that same speech:

       Over time, we can expect . . . growing trust and 
     cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, 
     daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their 
     leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it 
     needs to make progress in other critical areas.


[[Page S2779]]


  As a result of that, benchmarks were established--not by the 
Congress, benchmarks were established by President Bush and his 
administration with the Iraqi Government. When you look at the progress 
we have made--let me use General Petraeus's comments that he made:

       No one [in the U.S. or the Iraqi government] feels that 
     there has been sufficient progress by any means in the areas 
     of national reconciliation or in the provision of basic 
     public services.

  Only 3 of the 18 benchmarks have been satisfactorily met. The 
circumstances on the ground in Iraq are unsatisfactory. Iraqis are not 
getting the basic services they need.
  I questioned Ambassador Crocker, and following up questions that I 
posed to a panel we had last week before the Foreign Relations 
Committee, a panel of retired generals, experts in this area, and that 
was: Can you name a national leader in Iraq who is willing to step 
forward to provide the type of leadership, make the necessary 
concessions so that you can have a government in Iraq that has the 
confidence of its people? Because that is what we need to make the 
political progress. No one could mention a person's name. Ambassador 
Crocker said--and I used the examples of South Africa and Northern 
Ireland, where you had people willing to step forward--Ambassador 
Crocker said:

       There is no Nelson Mandela in Iraq.

  What an understatement that was. That was the understatement of our 
hearing.
  We seem to be changing our goals as to what is success or what we are 
trying to achieve, what is in the best interests of America, what type 
of government we want in Iraq. Well, our expectations certainly have 
changed there. There is no expectation that we will have the type of 
strong national government that has the confidence of all the ethnic 
communities. We have changed the expectation as to what that Government 
in Iraq's relationship will be with Iran. We seem to acknowledge that 
it may, in fact, strengthen Iran. There is no agreement now that we 
need to reduce our troop levels--certainly by the administration's 
mission. They want to maintain the troop level at the current level 
with no commitment to reduce it. There is certainly no expectation to 
reduce the cost to U.S. taxpayers. We are going to get a supplemental 
appropriation asking for more money from the U.S. taxpayers.
  We certainly have not focused on the major dangers against terrorism. 
If we did, we would be concentrating on Afghanistan, not spending so 
much effort in Iraq. The current situation yesterday was characterized 
by our experts as: fragile, uneven, reversible. We went through the 
current flare-ups in Basra and Baghdad where Shiite are fighting 
Shiite, a fight for power within Iraq with U.S. soldiers in the middle 
of that power struggle.
  We went through the influence of Iran and that the U.S. soldiers' 
presence may, in fact, be generating more support for Iran within Iraq. 
So let's take a look at the facts: The United States is supporting 
warring parties within Iraq. The fact is, over 5 years, over 4,000 
soldiers have died, American soldiers; 30,000 American soldiers have 
been wounded.
  I have visited them. I know these are life-changing injuries they 
will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Six hundred billion 
dollars and still counting of U.S. taxpayer money has been spent. This 
is a difficult mission for us to maintain. Look at our military. Our 
military is stretched. Look at our National Guards. I know what is 
happening in Maryland and our National Guard. They are serving with 
great distinction, but they are exhausted, and we need them in 
Maryland.
  Look at our economy. We are losing jobs here in America. One reason 
is we are so focused on spending money in Iraq, we are not investing in 
our own country. Look what is happening on our fight against terrorism. 
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, there was no al-Qaida presence in Iraq. 
Now we have hundreds of thousands of troops, American and Iraqis, and a 
couple thousand al-Qaida, according to General Petraeus.
  We are not focused on the war against terror, we are focused on a 
power struggle within Iraq, which should not be our focus. We need to 
do a better job in Afghanistan, but yet we are stuck in Iraq. We have 
no plan to draw down American troops. I find that unacceptable. That is 
not in the best interests of this country.
  Let me mention one more aspect of what has happened in Iraq. This is 
factual: the number of displaced people, nearly 5 million now, nearly 5 
million displaced; 2 million in neighboring countries. General Petraeus 
and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged that one of the reasons why 
violence in Baghdad is down is that the communities, the neighborhoods 
have been ethnically cleansed and people have left. They do not want to 
be in a violent neighborhood. They have left.
  But they are displaced. What is going to happen to them? Nearly three 
million in Iraq alone. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees 
has said it is not safe for them to go back to their neighborhoods. 
What is going to happen? If we are talking about a solution for Iraq, 
we have got to take a look at the refugees. This is a humanitarian 
concern, it is a security concern, it is also a concern about stability 
in the region.
  Let me give you one example. Jordan has now an extra 8 percent of its 
population as a result of refugees; an 8-percent increase. Now, if you 
used the same numbers in America, that would be 24 million, 24 million 
people coming to our country. Think about the stability of the region.
  Well, my position has been clear. I have opposed the war since its 
inception. I opposed giving the President the right to use our military 
more than 5 years ago. I have opposed the manner in which this war has 
been conducted. But we are where we are. We cannot reverse history. 
Where do we go from here?
  Well, we have 10 months left in this administration, 10 months to go, 
and the status quo is not what we need. We need to change course in 
Iraq, focus on the war on terror, rebuild and restrengthen our 
military. We have got to do that and stop spending $12 billion each 
month in Iraq at the expense of priorities right here at home. That is 
what we need to do starting immediately. We should not wait until the 
next election. We should start doing this today.
  We need to change our mission. Our mission should be U.S. soldiers 
fighting terrorists, not refereeing community fights, neighborhood 
fights; American troops protecting our interests and helping transition 
the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security.
  We should draw down the U.S. troops, bring them home. The status quo 
is not acceptable, that is, 140,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq.
  There was bipartisan recognition that the status quo is unacceptable. 
Several of our most distinguished Republican members of the Foreign 
Relations Committee made it clear that the status quo is not 
acceptable, yet this administration is trying to maintain the status 
quo for the next 10 months.
  I hope we can change that. Public opinion is against the status quo. 
We know that. What we need is a surge in diplomacy. We need other 
countries that have a direct interest in what is happening in Iraq to 
step forward. We need to engage international organizations, the United 
Nations and the OSCE. We have to have the Iraqis step forward and take 
responsibility for the security of their own country. They have oil. We 
need the Iraqis to pay for the costs of their own defense. The American 
taxpayers should not be doing this.
  One more thing I should talk about that we do not need: We do not 
need President Bush and the Iraqi Government negotiating a long-term 
security plan without Congressional approval. That would only restrict 
the options of the next administration or future Congresses. We should 
never allow that to happen.
  The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq, but in working 
toward that end, we cannot ignore other competing needs around the 
world and at home. We need a more thoughtful approach that will bring 
our troops home, refocus our resources on al-Qaida, and Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, step up diplomatic efforts, and internalize the effort to 
bring stability to that country and to the Middle East.
  I yield the floor.




                          ____________________