[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8162-S8163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 636 that 
Senator Lieberman will be trying to introduce tomorrow. It is a 
resolution of the Senate, and he will be trying to introduce it 
tomorrow. I am going to speak on it tonight. I am a coauthor of it. It 
speaks about the phenomenal success of the surge, of troops into Iraq. 
But it is more than just a surge of 30,000 troops. It has been a surge 
on many fronts: political, economic, and militarily. The resolution 
would be a statement by the Senate recognizing that the surge has 
worked, that those who executed the strategy are recognized for being 
the great leaders they are, it is a compliment to our troops, and it is 
also a recognition that the Iraqi people have stepped to the plate and 
changed the tides that existed in their country of extremism and Iraq 
now is becoming a stable government, a country where people are working 
out their differences through the rule of law and representative 
democracy, and al-Qaida has been delivered a dramatic blow.
  To put this in perspective, at the end of 2006, it was clear the old 
strategy was not working, that the troops we had in Iraq were not being 
used in a way to counter the insurgency and were not enough in number. 
All this came to a head in late 2006 when Senator McCain, myself, and 
Senator Lieberman, among others, were arguing for a change in strategy.
  We had, I think, seven visits to Iraq; at the time about four. During 
our visits--Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman--every time 
we went, it was worse than the time before, up until the surge became 
the new strategy. The sergeants, the colonels, and captains were very 
blunt with us, saying this was not working. It was clear to us we did 
not have the right number of troops or the right strategy. In January 
of 2007, President Bush, much to his credit, announced a new strategy, 
an infusion of, I think, 30,000 new combat brigades into Iraq to bring 
about security.
  It has always been our belief--Senator McCain, myself, and Senator 
Lieberman--that without security, it is hard to have a representative 
democracy. It is one thing to talk about political compromise and the 
difficulty of talk radio and MoveOn.Org. But it is another thing to 
talk about political compromise when your family is being murdered. It 
is very hard to administer the rule of law when the judges and the 
prospective participants in the trial are under siege and under attack. 
So without better security, there was no hope.
  I have always believed that a security environment is required before 
you can have political compromise, economic progress, or any 
forgiveness. The economic progress in Iraq is pretty stunning: 5 
percent growth. The oil revenues have almost doubled. Oil production 
has almost doubled. The economy is doing very well in Iraq compared to 
a year ago. The availability of energy and power is dramatically up. So 
the everyday life of the Iraqi people is still a struggle and difficult 
but far better than it was a year ago. There are a lot of people 
purchasing refrigerators and televisions and other electronic devices. 
The availability of power is at an all-time high. But demand is also at 
an all-time high.
  Economically, inflation is down and the Iraqis have a surplus. People 
say: Well, should they pay us back? I would like to get some of our 
money back. They are certainly paying more. They are paying for all 
major reconstruction projects now, and they are paying for the 
operation of their army, for the most part.
  But the best way to pay us back as a nation is for Iraq to be a place 
that embraces democracy, rejects al-Qaida, would be a buffer to Iranian 
ambitions, would be a place where a woman would have a say about her 
child. All that, to me, is priceless. For Iraq to go from a Saddam 
Hussein dictatorship to a representative government where Sunnis, 
Shias, and Kurds live in peace with each other, at peace with their 
neighbors is a major sea change in the overall war on terror and is a 
priceless event as far as I am concerned.
  To have an Arab nation in the heart of the Mideast, a Muslim nation 
that rejected al-Qaida, is exactly what we need more of. The Iraqi 
people need to be acknowledged as to their sacrifice. What they have 
done has been tough. Their casualty rate has been about three times 
ours. The political reconciliation progress is moving forward now in 
Iraq. Fifteen of the 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi 
Government. The debaathification law was passed. That allows members of 
the Baath Party under Saddam to come back into the Government and get 
some of their old jobs back.
  The amnesty law was passed. That means Sunni insurgents who were 
captured a year or 2 years ago as part of the insurgency to topple the 
Government in Baghdad will be let go and go back home and become part 
of the new Iraq.
  Forgiveness is required before you have reconciliation. You see 
throughout Iraq a level of forgiveness that I think is encouraging. For 
the Shias and the Kurds to pass the amnesty law, telling their Sunni 
brothers and sisters: Let's start over, is a major step forward. For 
the Sunnis to embrace new elections after they boycotted them in 2005 
is a recognition by the Sunni factions in Iraq that democracy is the 
way to go: Go to Baghdad through representation, not through violence. 
The Kurds have created stability in the north, and they are working 
with their partners in the south and in the west with the Sunnis and 
the Shias.
  Maliki has stepped to the plate. I was not so excited about his 
leadership a year ago, but he has turned things around. The Shia-
dominated Government in Iraq is taking on Shia militias in the southern 
part of Iraq, in the Basra area, that have been supported by Iranian 
special groups. The knock on Maliki was: Well, he is a sectarian 
leader. The fact that he would take on al-Sadr and Shia-backed militias 
from Iran--Iranian-backed militias in his own country--is a sign that 
he does not want to be dominated by Iranian theology.
  So I am hopeful more so now than ever that Iraq has turned a corner 
economically, politically, and militarily. Their army is 100,000 
stronger than it was before the surge, and they performed well after a 
slow start in the southern part of Iraq against the Shia militias, and 
they are fighting very well in Mosul.
  One of the most stunning events and turnarounds, I believe, has been 
the recent handing over of Anbar Province back to the Iraqis. About 2 
years ago, Anbar was declared lost. It was an al-Qaida stronghold--the 
Sunni part of Iraq--where al-Qaida was going up and down the streets of 
Ramadi holding a parade. And it was a very tough situation in Fallujah.
  What happened was a combination of events. The Sunni Iraqis in that 
part of Iraq, in Anbar, tasted al-Qaida life and did not like it. They 
joined with the coalition forces and, with the addition of more troops, 
made a strong stand against al-Qaida. About a week ago, Anbar was 
turned back over to the Iraqis, and al-Qaida has been delivered a very 
punishing blow. They are not yet completely defeated, but structurally 
they are in disarray, and you see the message traffic among al-Qaida 
operatives that Iraq has been a nightmare for them, and it has turned 
out to be their Vietnam. At the end of the day, anything that will 
diminish al-Qaida is good for us. There is no more diminishing event 
when it comes to al-Qaida than to have fellow Sunni Muslims turn on 
them.

[[Page S8163]]

  I am proud of the Iraqi people. They need to do more. I think they 
will. The surge has worked beyond my expectation--not just militarily. 
Politically and economically the surge has worked, and we are on the 
road now to what I would say is victory in Iraq.
  People ask me: What is winning? Winning is being able to leave Iraq 
and have behind an ally in the overall war on terror. Winning would be 
having a partner in the heart of the Arab world, the Iraqi Government, 
that will reject al-Qaida and deny al-Qaida a safe haven or a foothold. 
Winning would be having a Shia-led government that will stand up to 
Iran, be a good neighbor but not allow Iran to become stronger. Winning 
would be a place in the heart of the Middle East where a woman would 
have a say about her children through democracy. Winning would be the 
rule of law replacing the rule of gun. All of that makes us safer. The 
consequences of losing in Iraq would be enormous and would have been 
enormous to our national security interests. Al-Qaida would have 
claimed victory over the United States. Iran would be dominating the 
southern part of Iraq. The sectarian violence that was widespread, in 
my view, would have spread throughout the region. There would have been 
Sunni-Shia battles throughout the Middle East and Turkey, and the Kurds 
would have had a real problem among themselves. So a failed state in 
Iraq would have been a nightmare for our security interests. Winning in 
Iraq means a stable government aligned with us that rejects al-Qaida, 
and means a buffer to Iranian ambitions; a nation that accepts 
democracy and would be a peaceful partner to its neighbors. That is a 
major victory in the war on terror because it was a place where al-
Qaida was defeated by Muslims.

  This resolution in great detail lays out what happened over the last 
year and a half regarding the surge. It is a statement by the Congress 
acknowledging success on the battlefield and in other areas. I hope 
this is one area where Republicans and Democrats can come together and 
recognize the great success of our troops and acknowledge the Iraqi 
people themselves looked chaos in the eye and turned it away. I know it 
has been difficult for this country; we spent a lot of money and lost a 
lot of lives. But this war we are involved in is not a place, it is not 
about taking your eye off the ball; it is about fighting the enemy 
wherever the enemy goes. I would argue that the world is better off 
without Saddam Hussein being in power. The big mistake we made after 
the fall of Baghdad is not having enough troops and letting the 
situation get out of hand. I don't believe it was a mistake at all to 
go after Saddam's regime after 17 U.N. resolutions were ignored. So I 
think the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein being in 
power.
  I would argue we are now on the road to victory in Iraq where we are 
going to have a stable, functioning, representative government to 
replace a dictatorship--that will be our ally. This has come about with 
a lot of sacrifice on behalf of the men and women in uniform, their 
civilian counterparts, and Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have 
been great teammates over in Iraq. Here we are--a year ago tomorrow 
General Petraeus testified before the Congress. I wish to let him and 
all of those under his command, as well as Ambassador Crocker and all 
of those civilians who have been helping him, know that they have done 
an enormous good for the world, that they have protected our country 
from what I thought would have been a humiliating defeat. They have 
prevented that defeat. They have turned things around so that if we 
have the right exit strategy now, we are going to secure a major 
victory on the war on terror. Senator McCain: Hats off to him. He has 
always been about winning. We are coming home, but we are going to come 
home winners, with honor, and a more secure America because of what has 
happened in Iraq in the last year and a half due to the surge.
  I hope and pray we can have a vote on this resolution. It would be a 
good thing for the Senate to do. Whether you agree with us going into 
Iraq, that is an honest, genuine debate. Once there, we couldn't lose. 
We were about to lose. Thank God the surge was implemented, and more 
than anything else, thank God for good leadership, brave young men and 
women representing our Nation who took the fight to the enemy, and God 
bless the Iraqi people. I wish them nothing but the best in the future. 
I do believe the best days lie ahead for the Iraqi people, and that 20 
years from now, long after many of us are gone, here in the Senate we 
will look back on this period and understand what was at stake better 
than we do today. We will be looking at an Iraq that is part of the 
solution, not the problem, in the Mideast. History will say that the 
surge was a monumental event in the course of the war on terror, that 
the change in strategy was necessary work. I think militarily they will 
be studying this Petraeus plan for decades to come, and economically 
and politically, the courage that has been shown by the Iraqi people to 
step to the plate should be acknowledged by all of us.
  At the end of the day, if we had continued with the old strategy, I 
think we would have lost. Iraq would have been a failed state and it 
would have been a mighty blow to this country and the overall war on 
terror. Now I think we can say with confidence we have turned a corner. 
Nothing is irreversible. However, I think the gains made on the 
political, economic, and military front are going to be hard to roll 
back if we will stay the course and end this fight. We are very close 
now to having our troops come home in a way that will make us all 
safer. I have always believed this one thing about Iraq: Our national 
security interests in history will judge us not by the date we left 
Iraq but by what we left behind. I think we are very close to being 
able to say in the coming months that we are going to leave behind a 
new nation that is part of the solution, not the problem; a place where 
Muslims said no to al-Qaida; a place where different groups chose the 
rule of law over the rule of gun; a place where the woman can finally 
have a say about her child and her children's future in the heart of 
the Mideast; and that truly makes us all safer.
  I do hope Senator Lieberman will be allowed to introduce his 
resolution and we will have a vote on that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________