[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1939]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          SMART SECURITY AND THE CASE FOR LEAVING IRAQ, PART 5

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, people around the world were greatly moved 
by the courage of millions of Iraqis who braved death to cast a ballot 
on January 30, Iraq's first democratic elections in over 50 years. The 
Iraqi elections, however, did not justify this destructive war, neither 
the lies used to sell it nor the incompetence with which it has been 
managed.
  The elections will not bring back the 1,500 American soldiers who 
have been killed or heal the over-10,000 American troops who have been 
wounded, and they certainly cannot bring back the untold thousands of 
Iraqis who have lost their lives. These elections will not reimburse 
the American taxpayers nearly $200 billion spent over the last 3 years, 
and the elections will not stop the vicious insurgency that is 
terrorizing Iraqi communities.
  But the elections do demonstrate that Iraqis are prepared to manage 
their own affairs. That is why I believe that now is the time to 
develop and implement a plan to bring our soldiers home and end the 
U.S. military presence in Iraq absolutely as soon as possible.
  Together with 27 cosponsors, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, 
calling for a plan to end this military mishap. Earlier today I wrote 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations, asking them to hold hearings on 
this matter.
  The Bush administration spared no superlative in talking about the 
significance of the Iraqi elections. Such a momentous watershed event, 
however, would seem to demand a shift in our thinking about Iraq. But 
not for President Bush. He actually has become more emboldened by the 
election. He sees this as a mandate to keep our soldiers in Iraq as 
long as he wants. He and his surrogates are even engaging in 
provocative saber-rattling in the direction of Iran.
  The Iraq elections did not vindicate the doctrine of preemptive war, 
and they do not undo all the death and destruction that has occurred as 
a result. They demonstrated that the Iraqis can and should take control 
of their own destinies. Leaving will not be sufficient to defeat the 
insurgency, but staying absolutely will intensify it.
  What is fueling the insurgency and what gave rise to it in the first 
place is our continued military presence in Iraq. Our troops, whom the 
administration assured us would be embraced as liberators, are the 
focal point of anti-American extremism, making them sitting ducks.
  Let me be clear: I am not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. It would 
be irresponsible for the United States to abandon the Iraqi people. 
What we must do is play a role in facilitating their transition to 
stable democracy. We ought to work with Iraq's elected officials, the 
United Nations and the Arab League to create an international 
peacekeeping force that will keep Iraq secure. Much of the money we are 
spending on this military campaign should be diverted to infrastructure 
projects that will improve Iraqis' lives, such as road construction, 
new schools, water processing plants and more.
  Up to this point, Iraq's economic development has been scandalously 
mismanaged by the Bush administration, as billions of dollars 
appropriated by Congress have not actually been put to work on the 
ground. All future investments must be made with the needs of Iraqis 
being paramount, not the United States Government contractors and not 
other war profiteers.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe a focus on developmental and humanitarian aid 
in Iraq would be a model for a radically new approach to national 
security. We need what I call SMART security, which is a Sensible, 
Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.
  Instead of resorting to the military option and spending needlessly 
on weapons systems, the SMART security plan that I propose calls for 
building multilateral partnerships, partnerships that enable us to foil 
terrorists and stop weapons of mass destruction proliferation.
  A SMART security plan would address the conditions that led to 
terrorism in the first place: poverty, hopelessness, despair. Instead 
of troops, we should send scientists, educators, urban planners and 
constitutional experts to the troubled regions of the world.
  It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the United States to play the role of 
Iraq's ally and partner, not its occupier. It is time to give Iraq back 
to its own people. It is time to truly support our troops by beginning 
to bring them home. The first step is for the chairman and ranking 
member of the Committee on International Relations to hold hearings on 
this matter now.
  The Iraqi elections, however, will never justify the destructive war, 
and it will never stand up to the lies that we heard to sell it.

                          ____________________