[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 101 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S5735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHANGE IN IRAQ
Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is no doubt that right now American
families are being squeezed on all sides. Gas prices are sky high and
climbing. The cost of food is going up. So is the cost of college
tuition and health care. So it is no surprise that ``change'' is the
word everyone is talking about.
My colleagues on this side of the aisle and I want change, too, but
we want commonsense solutions. We are the party of economic security.
We think we should keep more of the money we earn. We favor more
private sector solutions to health care. We want America's energy
future to be here in America, not the Middle East. We want to change
the disastrous policy that has been implemented and kept by our fellow
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last 30 years, a
nonenergy policy, no production. As a Washington Post editorial pointed
out today, Congress cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. Demand
worldwide has gone up but supply has not.
We have the answer to that problem right here in America. We want to
change it and use the resources we have. We also want a strong
commitment in the war on terror. Changing back to the policies of the
1990s is not the way to win the war on terror. Senator Obama has said
we should go back to the 9/11 days, when terrorism was treated as just
another law enforcement matter. He pointed to the prosecution of the
World Trade Center bombers as the example to follow. That is precisely
the type of policy that led to attacks on American embassies and the
USS Cole. That is the kind of change that will make the Nation less
safe again.
If the Democrats wish to talk about change, let's talk about change,
change that matters and change that they have been unwilling to
acknowledge, a change when we started executing the war on terror by
going after the terrorists in the safe havens. We have kept our country
safe from attack since 9/11. Under the leadership of GEN David
Petraeus, Iraq has changed and changed dramatically. So why can't my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle change with it. Why can't
they change their stance and get behind our service men and women who
want to succeed and have had tremendous successes?
President Bush announced the surge and the new counterinsurgency in
2007. Iraq was a violent place at the time. Al-Qaida in Iraq held large
swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad, and
the Iraqi political leadership appeared helpless. So President Bush,
understanding the consequences of failure and withdrawal, changed. He
changed military leadership. General Petraeus changed to a new
strategy, a strategy for victory, of counterinsurgency or COIN that
involves getting out among the Iraqi people, working directly with
Iraqis committed to a peaceful, stable Iraq. That is a change my son
saw in Al Anbar, when his Marine scout sniper platoon helped clear Al
Anbar and turn it over to Sunni citizens and police. We still face big
challenges in Iraq but with a far more optimistic picture emerging. Al-
Qaida has been almost, if not completely, routed in Al Anbar, once
declared the center and base of operations for al-Qaida in Iraq.
On May 12 of this year, a prolific terrorist sympathizer by the name
of Dir'a Limen Wehhed posted a study on the Internet in which he
laments ``the dire situation that the mujaheddin find themselves in in
Iraq.'' He is talking about his guys, the bad guys. He cites the steep
drop in the number of insurgent operations conducted by various
terrorist groups, most notably al-Qaida's 94 percent decline in
operational ability over the last 12 months. In Sadr City, Iraqi
forces, the forces of the Iraqi Shiite leader al-Maliki, have rolled
through huge Shiite enclaves relatively unopposed. Iraqi forces did the
same in April in the southern city of Basra, where the Iraqi Government
advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers
of the militias.
When General Petraeus returned to Washington in September of last
year, even at that time he reported that the number of violent
incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings and car and suicide
bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. But
despite all this positive change, many on the other side of the aisle
are too vested in political defeat to see it. In fact, most Democrats
opposed the surge, claiming it is more of the same and would neither
make a dent in the violence nor change the dynamics in Iraq. The
Democratic leader proclaimed ``This war is lost'' and that U.S. troops
should pack up and come home, a disastrous change that even many
thoughtful scholars and commentators who opposed going into Iraq
initially say now is not the way to go. It would be a disaster. General
Petraeus returned again to Washington in April this year, and violence
has been reduced further. American casualties have declined
significantly. Al-Qaida was virtually eliminated in the northern city
of Mosul, as verified by the terrorists themselves. There are more
Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi Government has passed a variety of
laws promoting reconciliation. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to
demonstrate he can stand up to fellow Shiites supporting violence and
Iranian-backed special groups. There is every reason to embrace the
positive change we have seen and not abandon it and not force a
withdrawal. For that is not change but, rather, a policy that would put
Iraq back on the path toward violence, terrorism, and chaos.
The change we have made has made our country safer, going after
terrorists, helping Iraq stabilize their country, turning control over
to them, and moving our forces back from the front lines of offense to
a support role. That is the change we need to keep our country safe for
the future from terrorist attacks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________