[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 131 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5357-S5361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, yesterday, we learned from media reports
the Obama administration has made a decision to sharply reduce the
number of U.S. forces it is proposing for a post-2011 security
agreement with Iraq to roughly 3,000 troops. That media report has not
been contradicted yet by anyone in the administration, so one has to
assume that is the direction which the administration is headed.
As is well known, 3,000 troops is dramatically lower than what our
military commanders have repeatedly told us, on multiple trips to Iraq,
would be needed to support Iraq's stability and secure the mutual
interests our two nations have sacrificed so much to achieve. Our
military leaders on the ground in Iraq have told us, in order to
achieve our goal--which is a stable, self-governing Iraq, and as a
partner in fighting terrorism and extremism--they need a post-2011
force presence that is significantly higher than 3,000 troops.
[[Page S5358]]
We continue to hear that the Iraqis are to blame because they haven't
asked for a new agreement. The fact is, in early August, Iraq's major
political blocks reached agreement to begin negotiations with the
United States on a new security agreement. This week, Massoud Barzani,
the President of the Kurdistan regional government and one of the most
respected men in Iraq--and, in my view, one of the finest--called for a
continued presence of U.S. troops, saying Iraqi security forces are
still not prepared to secure protection for Iraq.
Perhaps significantly the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction,
Mr. Stuart Bowen, recently reported:
Iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work. It
is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago. Buttressing
this conclusion is the fact that June was the deadliest month
for U.S. troops in more than 2 years.
And, by the way, we continue to hear these quotes from various
administration officials about absent a request from the Iraqis, it is
difficult to settle on any one thing. Victoria Nuland stated that if
they come forward with a request, we would consider it. That is
assuming it is only in Iraq's national interests to have additional
troops here. It is in America's national security interests not to lose
Iraq after the sacrifice of some 4,500 brave young Americans, and the
consequences of failure are obvious.
Who is it that opposes the continued presence of the U.S. troops most
vociferously, strenuously, and sometimes in a very subversive way? Iran
and the Sadrists. Iran and the Sadrists want the United States out. It
is not a matter of Iraqi national security interests, it is a matter of
American national security interests.
What do 3,000 troops do? I don't know what 3,000 troops do, but I
know they are required to have certain force protection numbers, which
would be significant, and then how many troops would be left to carry
out the mission of protecting the United States civilians, contractors,
and personnel who remain there.
I guess you can sum this up, this decisionmaking process, best, and I
quote from a New York Times article, ``Plan Would Keep Small Force in
Iraq Past Deadline'':
A senior American military officer said the planning at
this point seemed to be driven more by the troop numbers than
the missions they could accomplish, exactly the opposite of
how military planners ideally like to operate. ``I think we
are doing this thing backwards,'' the officer said. ``We
should be talking about what missions we want to do, and then
decide how many troops we will need.''
I can assure my colleagues that is the view of the majority of
members of the military, many of whom have had multiple tours in Iraq,
that is their view of this process we are going through.
I would point out that my friends Senator Graham and Senator
Lieberman, who are coming--and I have been to Iraq on many occasions
since the initial invasion. We have had the opportunity to watch the
brave young Americans serve and sacrifice. We have had the ability to
see as the initial military success deteriorated into a situation of
chaos, beginning with the looting and unrest in Baghdad to very
unfortunate decisions that were made in the early period after the
victory in Iraq. And we watched. We watched the situation where many of
our military leaders, but also those who are now in the administration,
say that if we employed a surge, it would fail. The President of the
United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary
of State, the President's National Security Adviser, all of them said
the surge would fail; it was doomed to failure.
The fact is the surge succeeded. The fact is we now have an Iraq that
has an opportunity to be a free and independent country, but, maybe
more importantly, one that would never pose a threat to the United
States of America and, most importantly, a chance for the Iraqi people
to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifice that thousands and thousands and
thousands of Iraqis have made on their behalf and approximately 4,500
brave young Americans have.
The Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Connecticut, and I
recall meeting with military leaders in 2006, where we were told that
everything was going fine. The Senator from Connecticut, the Senator
from South Carolina, and I recall meeting with a British colonel in
Basra who told us that unless we turned things around, we were doomed
to failure. We remember the summer of 2007, when we were lonely voices,
along with that of General Petraeus, General Odierno, and other great
leaders who have been saying the surge could, and must, succeed.
I will leave it up to historians to decide whether our venture into
Iraq was a good one or a bad one, whether the sacrifice of young
Americans' lives was worth it, whether a stable and democratic Iraq,
which can be the result of our involvement there, was the right or
wrong thing to do. But what we should not do, and in deference to those
who have served and sacrificed we must not do, is make a decision which
would put all of that sacrifice and all that was gained by it in
jeopardy because of our failure to carry out the fundamental
requirement of contributing to Iraqi security in this very difficult
transition time.
I would ask my friend from South Carolina, to start with, perhaps he
remembers when we went to Baghdad, I believe it was 2007, and went
downtown with General Petraeus and were mocked and made fun of in the
media as I came back and said that things had improved in Iraq. Perhaps
the Senator from South Carolina recalls when we had that almost
triumphant visit in downtown Fallujah, a conflict that was won with
great cost in American blood and treasure. Perhaps the Senator from
South Carolina recalls going into downtown Baghdad and going to a
bakery in an environment not of complete security but dramatically
improved. All of it was purchased by the expenditure of America's most
precious asset, young Americans' blood. And now we place all of that at
great risk in the decisions, I say with respect, made by the same
people who said the surge couldn't succeed.
I urge the administration and the President to reconsider what
apparently is a decision and listen to our military leaders once, and
employ a sufficient number of troops to provide the Iraqis with--as
Barzai said, a sufficient number of troops to secure. As Barzai said,
Iraq security forces are still not prepared to secure protections for
Iraq.
I would ask my colleagues from South Carolina and Connecticut, aren't
there plans for us to have a large amount of American civilians there,
contractors, to protect them? Probably the most expensive form that we
could do rather than American troops. Is it not a flawed strategy to
not have enough American troops there to ensure that the lives of
Americans who are serving there in various capacities are protected?
Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, trying to respond to the Senator's question,
the answer is yes. But you don't have to believe me or Senator McCain.
Ambassador Jeffrey, who is our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, told us back in
June when he was getting confirmed that all civilian movements are
accompanied by American forces, to some extent, a mixture of Iraqi and
American forces.
We are about to pass the baton between the Department of Defense to
the Department of State. The civilian-military partnership that has
been formed over the last decade has been working very well, and the
future of Iraq is in Iraqis' hands, but they do need our help. As
Senator McCain said, we are helping ourselves.
On June 24, 2010, we asked General Odierno, Where are we in terms of
Iraq? How would you evaluate our situation? And since this is football
season----
Mr. McCAIN. This was at a hearing?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. This was at a hearing for confirmation for General
Austin. He said, We are inside the 10-yard line.
Well, this is football season. I think most Americans can understand
this great progress. He said, We have four downs. This is first in 10,
on the 10, we have 4 downs. He felt good that we can get it into the
end zone, but getting it into the end zone is going to require a
follow-on presence in 2012.
Having said that, I know most Americans want our troops to come home.
Include me in that group. We are going to go from 50,000 to zero at the
end of this year if something new doesn't happen. I am confident the
Iraqis want our continued presence in a reasoned way.
[[Page S5359]]
What do they need that we can provide? Intelligence gathering. We
have the best intelligence-gathering capability of anyone in the world,
and it helps the Iraqis stay ahead of their enemies. And who are their
enemies? The Iranians are trying to destabilize this young democracy.
Ambassador Jeffrey, who is a good man, said the reason we need to get
Iraq right is it helps our national security interests.
Show me an example in history where two democracies went to war.
There is not any. So if he could take Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and
replace it with a representative government, that is a huge advancement
in our national security interests over time.
What do the Iraqis need militarily? They don't have a mature air
force, so General Austin said it would be in our interests not only to
sell them planes, F-16s, but actually train them how to use those
airplanes. They have an infant navy to patrol their coast, to protect
them against threats there. It is in our interests not only to train
and develop the Iraqi police and army but to make sure that our
civilians who are going to help build this new democracy can travel
without fear and without unnecessary casualties, because the Iranians
are going to try to undercut us at every turn. That means targeting
American forces left behind.
What else do they need? Counterterrorism. Al-Qaida and other groups,
other radical groups, are going to try to come back into Iraq and
destabilize what we have done. We have seen some signs of that. We have
had 60 al-Qaida types released from American custody to Iraqi custody,
and some are back out on the streets. So a counterterrorism footprint
would be smart. Vice President Biden is right about this. A CT
footprint in Afghanistan and Iraq makes sense.
When you add up all these missions, intelligence gathering, training,
embedding, counterterrorism, force protection----
Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator, are you leaving out the
necessity for peacekeeping in the north between the Kurdish and the
Arabs?
Mr. GRAHAM. That is a very good point, and that is exactly sort of
where I was going to take this. That requires the footprint of
thousands. We don't need 5,000, but I think 10,000 when you add it up
is probably the bare minimum to do this. Because the commanders who are
policing the Kurdish-Arab dispute boundary line in the northern part of
Iraq have come up with a very novel approach, and I want to give the
administration credit and the military credit. What they have done is
they have taken Peshmergas, which are basically Kurdish militia,
integrated them with Iraqi national security forces and American forces
to form companies that eventually go to brigades, where they will get
to know each other and work together as a team. I think any neutral
observer would tell you our presence in Kirkuk has prevented a shooting
conflict in the past. That is what President Barzai is worried about in
the Kurdish areas. That is 5,000, he said. He has said we will need
5,000 troops here for a while to make sure this new concept of
jointness develops over time. So when you add the whole package, you
are somewhere around 10,000 plus.
To the administration, not only is bipartisanship desired in national
security, I think it is required. We can look back and pat each other
on the back or blame each other about Iraq. That is not what I am
trying to do. We are where we are, and we are in a pretty decent place
to the point that the Iranians are going nuts. They are trying to
undercut Iraq's national development, because their biggest nightmare
is to have a representative democracy on their border. That will incite
their own people in Iran to ask for more freedom.
So, please, to the Obama administration, don't make the same mistakes
at the end that the Bush administration made in the beginning. I can
say with some credibility that I argued against my own political party
infrastructure, that Senators McCain and Lieberman and others--we went
there enough to know it was not a few dead-enders, that the whole
security footprint was not sufficient, and the model to change Iraq was
not working.
It was General Petraeus's model that was adopted, to President Bush's
credit. That was a hard decision for President Bush. The war was
incredibly unpopular. People were frustrated. It seemed it was a lost
cause, and President Bush went against what was the political tide at
the moment. I am glad he did.
I ask President Obama to consider the long-term national security
interests of the United States and do what Senator McCain suggested--
not what he suggested, what our military suggested: define missions. Is
it important to have some support to intelligence gathering? I would
say yes. Training the Army and Air Force and Navy? I would say yes.
Having some presence to protect our civilians who are going to be the
largest groups? I would say overwhelmingly yes. Does it make sense to
have some American military support in the Kurdish-Arab dispute area?
Overwhelmingly yes.
We will stand by you. I think most Americans are frustrated and war
weary, but they don't want to lose. We are very close to changing Iraq
by helping the Iraqi people. We can't change Iraq; only they can. They
want to.
We talk about the deaths of Americans and it breaks our hearts. For
every American who has died there have probably been 10 Iraqis. This
has not been easy for people in Iraq. That is why I never lost faith.
What kept me going with Iraq and Afghanistan is I have been there
enough to know there are people in those countries who want the same
thing for their children as most people in this body want for theirs.
To be a judge in America, one can get criticized. It is a tough job.
One can lose their life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have personally
met people who decided to step to the plate--to be lawyers, be judges,
be policemen--who got killed. They knew what was coming their way.
It is in our national security interest to help this infant
democracy, and that is what it is. Corruption still abounds, there are
tons of problems in Iraq, but they are on the right trajectory.
I am asking the administration: Listen to your commanders. And
25,000, in my view--I am not a commander, but I could understand why
the President would say that is a bridge too far. I know what the
generals have recommended. It goes from the midteens to the
midtwenties. But somewhere to the north of 10, given my understanding
of Iraq, I think it will work. But I know we are broke. One thing I can
tell you is, we cannot afford to lose after all this investment. The
price and cost of losing in Iraq now would be devastating for years to
come.
If we do not see this through, who would help us in the future push
back against extremism, knowing that America left at a time when they
were asking us to stay? I am confident Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds want us
there in reasonable numbers to make sure they can have the help they
need to get this right.
Apparently, the decision has not been made yet. I am urging the
administration to look at the missions, be reasonable, understand that
we cannot give the military all they want all the time.
This is the decision of the Commander in Chief. He is a good man. It
is his call. But the one thing I offer and I think the three of us
offer in these very difficult times when America is under siege at home
is to be supportive voices for the idea we cannot retreat and become
fortress America.
Look what happened when a few people from Afghanistan, in far away
places, for less than $1 million--what havoc they wreaked on our
country. This Sunday is the 10th anniversary. I am hopeful as we get to
the 10th anniversary we can look back and say we have defended America
in a bipartisan way. It is not just luck that has prevented us from
being attacked. The President deserves a lot of credit for going after
bin Laden, a lot of credit for adding to troops in Afghanistan when
people were ready to come home.
I urge this administration to listen to our military leaders and
finish this right. It would be a tragedy upon a tragedy for us to be
inside the 10-yard line and fumble at a time when we can score a
touchdown--not only for our national security but for fundamental
change in the Mideast. If we get it right in Iraq, the Arab spring is
going to get the support it needs and deserves. If we fail in Iraq, it
will be just repeating history's mistakes.
[[Page S5360]]
The Bush administration did change. Thank God they did because they
did not get it right early on. We are so close to the end now. Let's be
cautious, let's be reasonable, let's err on the side of making sure we
can sustain what we have all fought for. I tell you this: History will
judge everybody well, including President Obama--and that would be OK
with me--if we can turn Saddam Hussein's dictatorship into a
representative government that would be aligned with us and be a voice
of moderation for the rest of the 21st century.
I would like to get Senator Lieberman's thoughts. It is one thing for
me to talk about this in South Carolina. But even in South Carolina, a
very red State, people are war weary and they are not excited about
having to stay in Iraq in 2012. I think they will listen to reason. But
during the darkest days of this effort in Iraq, Senator McCain went the
road less traveled by saying we need more at a time when the polls said
everybody is ready to come home. I do not question anybody's
patriotism. It was a hard call. It was a tough fight, and there were no
easy answers. But I am glad we chose to do what we did. I am glad
President Bush adjusted.
But Senator Lieberman, above all of us quite frankly, literally
risked his political career because he believed that what happened in
Iraq mattered to the United States.
The Senator was right. I want to thank him on behalf of all those who
served in Iraq for giving them the time and resources to prove we could
get it right.
I would like the Senator to, if he doesn't mind, to share his
thoughts with the body about how we should finish Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my friend
from South Carolina for his generous words.
Obviously, what turned the tide in Iraq was a vision, a commanding
vision by General Petraeus about what had to happen to succeed with a
new counterterrorism strategy and tremendous support from the men and
women of the American military, a generation that volunteered, that
stepped up to the call, that rightfully should be called America's
``new greatest generation.'' They are an inspiration to us.
Of course, we lost a lot of them there. The Iraqi military fought
hard and now, increasingly, has shown its capability to defend its own
nation, which is what we had hoped and prayed and fought for. So my
friends from Arizona and South Carolina had the same reaction I did
yesterday. We began to talk to each other by the end of the day as we
came back to Washington, to what was originally a FOX News story, that
the decision had been made in the administration to go down to 3,000
troops. We reacted that way because it was lower than any number we had
ever heard from anybody we had confidence in about what was necessary
to secure all that we have gained and all the Iraqis have gained.
The papers today report it as a fact. Secretary Panetta says no
decision has been made. I hope not because in these matters--I
understand there is politics in Iraq as well as here, but what has to
be put at the top of the list is what is best for our national security
and, of course, for the Iraqis, what is best for their national
security.
To me, if the number is right, and it is only going to be 3,000 more
there after the end of this year, I don't see how we can feel confident
that we can protect what we have spent a lot of American lives--a lot
of Iraqi lives, a lot of our national treasure and theirs--securing.
And I don't see how we can help to avoid a kind of possible return to
civil war, particularly on the fault lines my friends have mentioned,
between the Kurdish areas and the Arab areas.
This is a decision ultimately for the President. I want to say this
about doing the right thing: The President, obviously, took a position
for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq during the campaign of
2008. I think there were a lot of his supporters who felt, who hoped,
who dreamed that pretty much the day--we are hearing a lot about day
one these days, a lot about day one after the next election. But I
think a lot of President Obama's supporters expected that on day one of
his administration he would begin a full withdrawal from Iraq. To his
great, great credit, he did not do that because I think he understood
he had a goal, which was to pull our troops out of Iraq but that
America had an interest and he as President had to protect that
interest in not losing in Iraq, not letting it fall apart, and not
letting us suffer the loss we would to our credibility and strength
around the world.
My friends and I traveled a lot together. We have been in places far
away from Iraq--Asia, for instance--where, when it was uncertain about
whether we were going to stick to it in Iraq we heard real concern from
our allies in Asia. They said: You know, Iraq is far from here, but we
depend on American strength and credibility for our security and
freedom in Asia, in the Asia-Pacific region. If you are seen to be weak
and lame and not up to the fight in Iraq, it is going to compromise our
freedom.
The President, to his credit, understood all that and put us on a
slow path to withdrawal. But I don't think anybody would fault the
President if we--and I think the expectation has been that we have
achieved so much that we could--leave a core group there to continue to
train the Iraqi military so they reach their full potential, to be
there to assist them in a counterterrorism fight because that is
essentially what is going on in Iraq now. The war is basically over,
but the extremists, the Shia militia, some remnants of al-Qaida, are
carrying out terrorist attacks. Those are the explosive--literally
explosive--high-visibility attacks.
We have special capacities in the U.S. military to work with the
Iraqi military to prevent and counter those terrorist attacks.
Then the final part of the mission has to be to protect the American
personnel there, civilian personnel. I don't know what that number will
be. At one point--we already have the largest----
Mr. McCAIN. Can I ask my friend to yield?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 7 minutes past
12:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. At one point somebody indicated to
us--we were in Baghdad--that the American Embassy, which is already the
largest U.S. Embassy in the world in terms of personnel, could go up as
high as 20,000. It could be that high. Those are a lot of civilians
committed to working in the country that we need to have forces there
to protect.
We are all coming to the floor today to appeal to Secretary Panetta,
to the President: It would be shortsighted. If it is really going to be
3,000 and only 3,000, and, frankly, we are not going to tuck some away
in those civilian personnel numbers in the embassy or somewhere else,
covert operators--if it is really only 3,000, they are not going to be
able to do the job that needs to be done. Not only that, they are going
to send a message of weakness, lack of resolve, anxiousness to get out
to the Iraqis' enemies and ours in the region, and that particularly
includes Iran.
I join my colleagues. We have been together on this for a long time.
I don't want us to squander what we have won, and we will, I am afraid,
if we only leave 3,000 American troops there.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I say to my colleague, no events in history are
exactly similar. But I think we learned in Lebanon and again in Somalia
that forces that are too small and do not have sufficient force
protection--and I am not saying they are exact parallels, but certainly
it puts whoever is there, whether they be military or civilian, in some
kind of danger. As that progress has been made--and it has been
significant progress in a country that has never known democracy--we
have now Turkish attacks on the PKK up in the Kurdish area. We have
continued tensions in the areas to which the Senator from South
Carolina referred, which at one point, I believe, last June almost came
to exchange of hostilities, between the Peshmerga and the others, and
there is also increased Iranian interest in Basra. There continues to
be the export of arms and IEDs from Iran into Iraq. They have no air
force. They have no ability to protect their airspace.
Isn't it true their counterintelligence is dependent on our technical
assistance, which means personnel?
[[Page S5361]]
So the argument seems to be that if we want this experiment to
succeed, we should not put it in unnecessary jeopardy.
Mr. GRAHAM. I will add, if I may, the 3,000 number does not allow the
missions that are obvious to most everybody who has looked at Iraq to
be performed in a successful manner. That is the bottom line. That is
why no one has thrown out 3,000 before. Can you do it with 10,000? That
is where you are pushing the envelope. The Kurdish-Arab boundary
dispute almost went hot. This new plan we have come up with to
integrate the Peshmurga, the Iraqi security forces with some Americans,
will pay dividends over time. Mr. President, 5,000 is what the American
commander said he needed to continue that plan. We have a plan to even
wind down that number. It is just going to take a while. When it comes
to Iraq, I can tell you right now I would not want our American
civilians to be without some American military support, given what I
know is coming to Iraq from Iran.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I mention one fundamental here? The question is: Is
it in the United States national security interest to have these
10,000-plus American troops carrying out the missions we just described
or is it not? If it is, then it is pure sophistry to say: Well, we
would only consider this if the Iraqis requested it. If we are waiting
for the Iraqis to request it, then it means it doesn't matter whether
the United States is there.
I think the three of us and others--including General Odierno,
General Petraeus, and the most respected military and civilian
leadership--think it is in our national interest. The way this should
have happened is the United States and the Iraqis sitting down
together, once coming to an agreement, making a joint announcement that
it is in both countries' national security interest. If it is not, then
we should not send one single American there, not one.
Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator will yield for a second, that is a good
point. We have been asked to go by both administrations. The Iraqis
have a political problem. That is not lost upon us. Most people in most
countries don't want hundreds of thousands of foreign troops roaming
around their country forever. So the Iraqis have been upfront with us.
We want to continue the partnership, but it needs to be at a smaller
level. They are absolutely right. I don't buy one moment that there is
a movement in Iraq saying we will take 3,000, not 1 soldier more. I
think what is going on here is there is, as Senator McCain suggested, a
number drives the mission, not the mission drives the number. At the
end of the day, this 3,000 doesn't get any of the essential jobs done.
It leads to 3,000 exposed. It leaves the thousands of civilians without
the help they need. It leaves the Iraqi military in a lurch. There is
no upside to this.
I would end with this thought: Let's get the missions identified and
resource them in an adequate way, and I think the country will rally
around the President. I cannot think of too many Americans who would
want our people to be in harm's way unnecessarily. If you leave one,
you have some obligation to the one. Well, if you left one, you would
be doing that person a disservice. Leave enough so we can get it right,
and that number is far beyond 3,000.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to say in response to something
Senator McCain said, somebody in the military said to me: If we are not
going to leave enough to do the job, we might as well not leave anybody
there.
Of course, we don't want that to happen. There are a couple of
alternatives here. One is that the 3,000 is not the number. Hopefully
we will have clarification. It is more than that. In all our trips to
Iraq, talking about repeated teams of leadership, never has there been
anyone who said to us that we needed less than 10,000 American troops
there to do this job. I want to repeat this; there is a kind of sleight
of hand here. Maybe it is 3,000 here and a few more thousand tucked
into the civilian workforce at the embassy and a few more somewhere in
the special covert operators. If that is the game plan here, it is a
mistake. We ought to see exactly how many troops are leaving there. It
gives confidence to our allies in the region, particularly in Iraq, and
it will unsettle our enemies, particularly in Iran.
Dr. Ken Pollack has a piece in the National Interest that is out now
about this situation. He is concerned about the small number of troops
that may be left there and agrees that there may be some Iraqis who
might be pushing for a smaller post-2011 force with a more limited set
of missions. Dr. Pollack says:
That would be a bad deal for the Iraqi people and for the
United States. Our troops would be reduced to spectators as
various Iraqi groups employ violence against one another.
Moreover, if we have troops in Iraq but do nothing to stop
bloodshed there, it would be seen as proof of Washington's
complicity. If American forces cannot enforce the rules of
the game, they should not be in Iraq, period, lest they be
portrayed as contributing to the destruction of the country.
That is what we are saying.
The final point here is Dr. Pollack argues in this piece that the
United States, if this is in response--giving the benefit of the doubt
for a moment--to Iraqi political concerns, that the U.S. has the
leverage to avoid this dangerous outcome. He writes:
America has the goods to bargain. The question is whether
Washington will.
That is the question I believe my colleagues from Arizona and South
Carolina are asking today: Will we bargain with our Iraqi allies that
this is the problem to be able to work with them for another chapter to
secure all we have gained together up until now?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate your indulgence and yield the
floor.
____________________