[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 57 (Monday, April 20, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4407-S4408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMERICAN CHALLENGES

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, toward the end of 2006, President Bush 
concluded that American security interests in the Persian Gulf were not 
being advanced by the military strategy that was then in place in Iraq. 
He directed a review of military plans and decided to accept the 
recommendation of GEN David Petraeus and other advisers to adopt a 
counterinsurgency strategy that would involve a surge of ground forces 
to secure the Iraqi population. In the face of growing sectarian 
violence in Iraq, President Bush announced this strategy in early 2007, 
and the success of this strategy is now so widely acknowledged that it 
is hard to believe that just 2 years ago some in Washington wanted to 
cut off funding for our forces on the battlefield and establish 
arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal without consideration to conditions 
on the ground.
  Over the past 2 years, the American people have witnessed a gradual 
maturation of the Iraqi Government. Iraqi security forces, working with 
coalition forces, took control of Basra and Sadr City. General 
Petraeus's efforts to shift responsibility to the Iraqi Army took place 
in front of a pessimistic audience that included, of course, Iran. But 
it worked.
  During the recess, I visited General Odierno in Baghdad, and despite 
ongoing challenges in some provinces and the continuing need of the 
Iraqi security forces for coalition support, he is optimistic that the 
security gains made in Iraq are indeed sustainable.
  That is why I was encouraged when President Obama moved away from his 
campaign promise to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months 
of his inauguration. Instead, he accepted the advice of Generals 
Petraeus and Odierno to draw down forces at a pace that will recognize 
conditions on the ground, the challenges associated with Iraqi 
elections, and the need to maintain a presence to conduct training, 
force protection, and counterterrorism.
  To those of us who ignored the calls for arbitrary deadlines for 
withdrawal and efforts to cut off funding for our forces in combat, it 
is likewise encouraging to see President Obama has accepted the 
recommendations of General McKiernan and General Petraeus to order a 
surge of additional forces in Afghanistan in order to succeed there. I 
visited with General McKiernan in Kabul last week, and he explained his 
plans to deploy these additional forces. He is mindful of the 
challenges associated with Afghan national elections, the need to 
continue expanding the Afghan National Army and police, and the need to 
combat corruption within

[[Page S4408]]

the Afghan ministries. Nonetheless, he is confident of military 
success. With the lives and security of so many at stake, it is 
important that the Obama administration follow the best military 
advice. So far in Afghanistan, this is precisely what the President has 
done, and he deserves a lot of credit for it.
  During the recess, President Obama submitted a supplemental 
appropriations request to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and Republicans will aggressively support our combat forces just as we 
did in the last Congress. In the coming months and years, Congress will 
continue to play an essential role in preserving and extending the 
security gains our service men and women have made in Iraq and in 
fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. By approving 
President Obama's request for war funding, we will provide our men and 
women in uniform with resources they need to complete their missions 
and return home with honor.
  This is a solemn duty, and Members of Congress should resist the 
temptation to use these war funding requests as an opportunity to fund 
unrelated projects. The President's war funding request should be used 
for its intended purpose; that is, the national defense.
  In that vein, this war spending bill falls short in one important 
respect. It requests up to $80 million for the purpose of shuttering 
the secure detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before the 
administration has a place to put the roughly 240 inmates who live 
there. The administration has sought to mollify our critics overseas by 
saying it will transfer the inmates at Guantanamo in a matter of 
months. The administration should, instead, be assuring the American 
people that these inmates will not be transferred to American soil or 
allowed to return to the battlefield--an assurance that so far the new 
administration has not been able to give.
  This is an extremely important issue. As the clock runs out on the 
administration's plan to shut down Guantanamo within the next 9 months, 
Americans are paying closer and closer attention to what this means for 
them. It is one thing to announce the goal of closing this facility; it 
is quite another to set an arbitrary date for closure before anyone has 
even come up with a safe alternative. The administration hasn't even 
been able to assure us that these 240 detainees will not be scattered 
across the United States. Indeed, when it comes to Guantanamo, the 
administration doesn't seem to have any plan at all for dealing with 
men whom many consider to be the most dangerous terrorists alive. 
Meanwhile, Guantanamo has provided Americans with a high degree of 
safety and certainty. Of the 800 terrorists who have been held there 
over the years, not a single one has ever escaped to harm anyone. Not 
one has escaped to harm anyone.
  In the days ahead, Republicans will remind the American people about 
the dangers of closing Guantanamo without a safe alternative--and prod 
the administration to rethink its strategy in the same way the 
President has rethought his campaign proposals on Iraq. In the end, the 
safety of the American people is of far more important concern than 
pleasing our foreign critics, many of whom have been far quicker to 
criticize our detention policies than they have been in offering a hand 
in adjusting them. On Guantanamo, it is increasingly important that we 
get the policy right and put the politics aside. If it does so, the 
administration can expect strong bipartisan support.

                          ____________________