[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3071-S3073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN POLICY VISION
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I wish to bring to the attention of my
colleagues a speech that my good friend and fellow Delawarean Joe Biden
delivered yesterday at Georgetown University. In his remarks, Senator
Biden eloquently laid out a foreign policy vision for Democrats and
outlined what is at stake for our country in the years ahead. I urge my
colleagues to read Senator Biden's speech, and I ask unanimous consent
that it be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
When people say ``this is the most important election in my
lifetime,'' they're right.
So much is at stake. The physical security of our children.
The retirement security of our parents. The economic and
health security of our families. And, above all else, the
national security of our country, which is a President's
first responsibility.
I start from a simple premise: we cannot afford another
four years of Republican stewardship of our nation's
security.
After eight years of the Bush Administration, our country
is less secure and more isolated than it has been at any time
in recent history. This administration has dug America into a
very deep hole--with very few friends to help us climb out.
It doesn't have to be this way. The next President will
have an awesome responsibility--but also the greatest
opportunity since FDR--to change the direction of our
country* * * and the world.
It starts with a much clearer understanding of how the
world has changed over the past two decades. As Yeats wrote
in ``Easter 1916,'' our world has ``changed utterly, a
terrible beauty has been born.''
The emergence of China and India as major economic powers.
The resurgence of Russia floating on a sea of oil. A unifying
Europe. The spread of dangerous weapons and lethal diseases.
The shortage of secure sources of energy, water and even
food. The impact of climate change. Rising wealth and
persistent poverty. A technological revolution that sends
people, ideas and money hurtling around the planet at ever
faster speeds. The challenge to nation states from ethnic and
sectarian strife. The struggle between modernity and
extremism.
That's a short list of the forces shaping the 21st century.
No one country can control these forces, but more than any
other country, we have an ability to affect them--if we use
the totality of our strength.
Our military might and economic resources are necessary but
not sufficient to lead us into this new century. It is our
ideas and ideals that will allow us to exert the kind of
leadership that persuades others to follow and to deal
effectively with these forces of change.
Over the next few months, I'll speak in detail about how
Democrats will exert that kind of leadership.
For today, I want to concentrate on this administration. It
has squandered our ability to shape this new world. It has
put virtually all of these issues on the back burner, failing
to devote the intellectual capital and constant effort they
require. It has destroyed faith in America's judgment. And it
has devalued America's moral leadership in the world.
Instead, this administration has focused to the point of
obsession on the so-called ``war on terrorism'' and produced
a one-size-fits-all doctrine of military preemption and
regime change ill suited to the challenges we face.
It has made fear the main driver of our foreign policy. It
has turned a deadly serious but manageable threat--a small
number of radical groups that hate America--into a ten-foot
tall existential monster that dictates nearly every move we
make.
Even if you look at the world through this administration's
distorted lens, you see a failed policy. This failure flows
from a dangerous combination of ideology and incompetence and
a profound confusion about whom we're fighting.
It starts with the very language the President has tried to
impose: ``the global war on
[[Page S3072]]
terror.'' That is simply wrong. Terrorism is a means, not an
end, and very different groups and countries are using it
toward very different goals. If we can't even identify the
enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to
see how we will win.
The most urgent threat is the intersection of the world's
most radical groups--like Al Qaeda--with the world's most
lethal weapons.
But we also must confront groups that use terror not to
target us directly, but to advance their own nationalistic
causes. We must deal with outlaw states that support them and
otherwise flout the rules. We must face a civil war in Iraq,
a renewed war for Afghanistan, and an ideological war for the
future of Pakistan. We must help resolve a historic conflict
between Arabs and Israelis.
And we must contend with Iran, especially its efforts to
acquire the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.
This administration spent five years fixated on changing
the Iranian regime. No one likes the regime, but think about
the logic: renounce the bomb--and when you do, we're still
going to take you down. The result is that Iran
accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material and is
closer now to the bomb than when Bush took office.
Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct
change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in
terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous
nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does
the right thing.
That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as
Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.
But it also means doing much more to reach out to Iran--
including through direct talks--to exploit cracks within the
ruling elite and between Iran's rulers and its people, who
are struggling economically and stifled politically. The
Iranian people need to know that their government, not the
United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation.
Saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy
imaginable. It forces Iranians who despise the regime to
rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the
Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the
proceeds going right into Tehran's pockets. The worst
nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension
is an America ready, willing and able to engage. It's amazing
how little faith this administration has in the power of
America's ideas and ideals.
All these fronts throughout the Middle East and South Asia
are connected. But this administration has wrongly conflated
them under one label, and argued that success on one front
ensures victory on the others. It has lumped together, as a
single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with
each other than with us. It has picked the wrong fights at
the wrong time, failing to finish a war of necessity in
Afghanistan before starting a war of choice in Iraq.
The result is that, to quote the findings of the most
recent National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist
Threat: ``Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West .
. . [it has] regenerated . . . and remains determined to
attack us at home.''
Of course, we must destroy Al Qaeda.
But instead of rolling back the threat it poses, this
administration's approach has helped produce a global
breakout of extremism, which now threatens more people in
more places than it did before 9-11.
So even on its own terms, the national security strategy of
this administration has been a failure. We cannot afford four
more years.
Last month, a man I greatly admire and consider a friend,
Senator John McCain, set out his vision for our foreign
policy.
To his credit, John repudiates some of the Bush
Administration's approach to the world. He recognizes that
the power of our example is as important as the example of
our power . . . that allies we respect, not disdain, can
advance our interests. He is especially eloquent about his
abhorrence for war--as John is uniquely placed to be.
But John McCain remains wedded to the Bush Administration's
myopic view of a world defined by terrorism. He would
continue to allow a tiny minority to set the agenda for the
overwhelming majority.
It is time for a total change in Washington's world view.
That will require more than a great soldier. It will require
a wise leader.
Nowhere is this truer than in Iraq. The war dominates our
national life. It stands like a boulder in the road between
us and the credibility we need to lead in the world and the
flexibility we require to meet our challenges at home.
When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John
McCain and George W. Bush. They are joined at the hip.
When it comes to Iraq, there will be no change with a
McCain administration . . . and so there is a real and
profound choice for Americans in November.
Like President Bush, Senator McCain likes to talk about the
dire consequences of drawing down our forces in Iraq. He
argues that Iraq is the meeting point for two of the greatest
threats to America: Al Qaeda and Iran. It's an argument laden
with irony. After all, who opened Iraq's door to Al Qaeda and
Iran? The Bush Administration.
``Al Qaeda in Iraq'' is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy: it
wasn't there before the war, but it is there now. As to Iran,
its influence in Iraq went from zero to sixty when we toppled
Saddam's Sunni regime and gave Shi'ite religious parties
inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to power.
No matter how we got to this point, President Bush and
Senator McCain argue that if we start to leave, it will
further empower Al Qaeda and Iran.
I believe they are exactly wrong. And so do a large number
of very prominent retired military and national security
experts who testified before the Foreign Relations Committee
this month.
Would drawing down really strengthen ``Al Qaeda in Iraq''
and give it a launching pad to attack America? Or would it
help eliminate what little indigenous Iraqi support ``Al
Qaeda in Iraq'' retains?
Most Sunni Arabs have turned on ``Al Qaeda in Iraq,''
alienated by their tactics and ideology. ``Al Qaeda in Iraq''
is down to about 2,000 Iraqis and a small number of
foreigners whose almost exclusive focus is Iraq. When we draw
down, the most likely result is that Iraqis of all
confessions will stamp out its remnants--and we can retain a
residual force in or near Iraq to help them finish the job.
Last week, I asked our ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to
tell us where al Qaeda poses a greater threat to America's
security: in Iraq, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said:
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So what about Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan--the
people who actually attacked us on 9-11? If we draw down,
would they be emboldened?
Or, to paraphrase the National Intelligence Estimate on
Terrorism, would they lose one of their most effective
recruiting tools--the notion that we're in Iraq to stay, with
permanent military bases and control over the oil? And would
they finally risk the full measure of America's might?
Senator McCain has taken a lot of heat for saying he would
not mind if American troops stay in Iraq for 100 years. The
truth is, he was trying to make an analogy to our long term
presence in peaceful post-war Germany, post-armistice Korea
and post-Dayton Bosnia.
But Germany, Korea or Bosnia after the peace are nothing
like Iraq today--with thousands of bombs, hundreds of
American injured and dozens of American killed every month--
and there is little prospect Iraq will look like them anytime
soon.
Worse, saying you're happy to stay in Iraq for 100 years
fuels exactly the kind of dangerous conspiracy theories about
America's intentions throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds
that we should be working to dispel.
What about Iran? Would drawing down increase its already
huge influence in Iraq? Or would it shift the burden of
helping to stabilize Iraq from us to them and make our forces
a much more credible deterrent to Iran's wider misbehavior?
The idea that we could or even should wipe out every
vestige of Iran's influence in Iraq is a fantasy. Even with
160,000 American troops in Iraq, our ally in Baghdad greets
Iran's leader with kisses. Like it or not, Iran is a major
regional power and it shares a long border--and a long
history--with Iraq.
Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000
Americans troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross
fire of intra Shi'a rivalry and Sunni-Shi'a civil war.
The challenge for us is not eliminating all Iranian
influence in Iraq, but forcing Iran to confront the specter
of a disintegrating Iraq or all-out war between different
Shi'a factions.
By drawing down, we can take away Iran's ability to wage a
proxy war against our troops and force Tehran to concentrate
on avoiding turmoil inside Iraq's borders and instability
beyond them.
Finally, would our responsible draw down accelerate
sectarian chaos?
Or would it cause Iraq's leaders and Iraq's Sunni Arab
neighbors to finally act responsibly? To date, both have used
our large presence as a crutch or an excuse for inaction.
When that stops, they will have to start to fill the vacuum
or put their interests at much greater risk.
We should debate the consequences of drawing down in Iraq.
But more importantly, we should talk about what both
President Bush and Senator McCain refuse to acknowledge: the
increasingly intolerable costs of staying.
The risks of drawing down are debatable. The costs of
staying with 140,000 troops are knowable--and they get
steeper every day: the continued loss of the lives and limbs
of our soldiers; the emotional and economic strain on our
troops and their families due to repeated, extended tours, as
Army Chief of Staff General George Casey recently told
Congress; the drain on our Treasury-- $12 billion every
month; the impact on the readiness of our armed forces--tying
down so many troops that, as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
Richard Cody said, we don't have any left over to deal with a
new emergency; and the inability to send enough soldiers to
the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda
has regrouped and is plotting new attacks.
When I visited Afghanistan in February, General McNeil, who
commands the international force, told me that with two extra
combat brigades--about 10,000 soldiers--he could turn around
the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on
the move. But he can't get them because of Iraq.
Even when we do pull troops out of Iraq, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, says he would want to send
them home for a year to rest and retrain before sending them
to Afghanistan.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day
when we fully join the fight
[[Page S3073]]
against the real Al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who
attacked America 7 years ago.
It is long past time to clearly define our interests in
Iraq. It is not in our interest to intervene in an internal
power struggle among Shi'a factions. It is not in our
interest to back one side or the other, or get caught in the
cross fire of a Sunni-Shi'a civil war. It is in our interest
to start to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Even if we could keep 140,000 troops in Iraq, they will not
be the deciding factor in preventing chaos. Instead, we need
to focus all our remaining energy and initiative on achieving
what virtually everyone agrees is the key to stability in
Iraq: a political power sharing agreement among its warring
factions. I remain convinced that the only path to such a
settlement is through a decentralized, federal Iraq that
brings resources and responsibility down to the local and
regional levels.
We need a diplomatic surge to get the world's major powers,
Iraq's neighbors and Iraqis themselves invested in a
sustainable political settlement.
Fifteen months into the surge that President Bush ordered
and Senator McCain embraced, we've gone from drowning to
treading water. We are no closer to the President's stated
goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, govern itself and
sustain itself in peace. We're still spending $3 billion
every week and losing 30 to 40 American lives every month.
We can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves
and doing great damage to our other vital interests around
the world. That's exactly what both the President and Senator
McCain are asking us to do.
They can't tell us when, or even if, Iraqis will come
together politically, which was the purpose of the surge in
the first place. They can't tell us when, or even if, we will
draw down below pre-surge levels. They can't tell us when, or
even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. They
can't tell us when, or even if, this war will end.
Most Americans want this war to end. They want us to come
together around a plan to leave Iraq without leaving chaos
behind.
They're not defeatists. They're patriots who understand the
national interest--and the great things Americans can achieve
if we responsibly end a war that we should not have started.
I believe it is fully within our power to do that. Then,
with our credibility restored, our alliances repaired and our
freedom renewed, we will once again lead the world. We will
once again address the hopes, not play to the fears, of our
fellow Americans.
That is my hope for next November--and for the country we
all love.
May God bless America and protect our troops.
____________________