[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13018-13020]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       STRAIGHT FACTS ABOUT IRAQ

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my 5-
minute Special Order out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President likes to say as the Iraqi 
people stand up, the U.S. will stand down. He has changed the mission 
from finding weapons of mass destruction to removing a dictator and 
bringing democracy to Iraq, saying the Iraqi people would decide what 
is best for their country. The President essentially likes to point to 
the recent formation of a new Iraq government as vindication of his 
policies and a turning point in bringing peace to a troubled land.
  Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki announced a 24 point 
reconciliation to stabilize the country, his government's first major 
independent initiative. Within hours, we learned the U.S. had been 
deeply involved in watering down what the administration did not like 
about the Iraqi reconciliation plan, including two key elements, an 
offer of amnesty for insurgents and calling for a timetable for U.S. 
troop withdrawal.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. U.S. troops will 
never be able to leave Iraq as long as we stay the course of allowing 
the Iraqi government to make decisions only so long as we agree with.
  After all the sacrifices made by the American people, after all the 
American soldiers lost in combat, wounded and psychologically scarred 
in combat, the President's Iraq strategy is evolving into a corporate 
subsidy strategy. Influential leaders at home and abroad are beginning 
to raise questions about the President's intentions.
  Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the record three recent articles from 
the mainstream influential news media in the Mideast and the U.S. 
``Sovereignty is just a word on paper until Iraq is allowed to run its 
own affairs,'' is the title of an editorial published in the Daily 
Star, a distinguished newspaper in Lebanon.
  On the same day, the Daily Star reprinted a commentary originally 
published in the Los Angeles Times entitled: An Iraq Amnesty Will Split 
the Insurgency. The Arab News published a commentary entitled 
Reconciliation in Iraq: If Only Maliki Had Freedom of Action.
  Thoughtful people are raising troubling questions. This is the 
conclusion of the Daily Star's editorial: ``The Iraqis need the space 
to make hard decisions that will help them restore stability in their 
country. But they will never find this space so long as the U.S. 
officials continue to micromanage the Iraqi government according to 
their own plan. What the Iraqis really need most now is what the 
Americans promised them long ago, freedom. And that ought to include 
the freedom to govern their own country in a way that would benefit the 
Iraqi people.''
  The President keeps telling Congress and the American people that it 
is stated policy to let Iraq stand up. If that is the case, then the 
President cannot instruct the administration to hold the Iraqi 
government down. Otherwise, we are installing a U.S. government, run by 
Iraqis, and that is one of the worst fears of the Middle East.
  If the President is going to follow his own policy, then Iraqi 
leaders may make decisions we don't like. If the President is calling 
the shots behind the scenes, then the new Iraqi government will have no 
credibility. Without credibility an Iraqi government is living on 
borrowed time, and we know it.
  This Nation has some history with attempts to install or prop up 
governments around the world beholden to the United States, and the 
record is dismal. How many times have we thrown billions at so-called 
friends, only to see these leaders ousted or ignored because they are 
seen as puppets of the United States?
  The Arab News commentary says, ``If left to his own devices Iraq's 
new Prime Minister Maliki has a good chance of uniting his fractured 
country and stamping out the violence. But there is just one problem. 
U.S. internal politics appear to be thwarting his efforts.''
  Running Iraq from behind the scenes cannot be the President's 
definition of stay the course, or the U.S. will stay in Iraq 
indefinitely. The Iraq war has divided this Nation, and the Iraq 
government's decisions on difficult issues like amnesty for insurgents 
will divide America even more.
  The President said he wanted a free and independent Iraq. Well, 
perhaps he got what he wanted. Now what is he going to do about it?

                              {time}  2345

  Finding a way to end the war can be as difficult as finding a way to 
start a war. It will be impossible unless the President starts talking 
straight to the American people and to the Iraqi people. You cannot 
install a puppet government and think that that is going to fool the 
Iraqis. They will continue to attack, which will keep our troops there 
and keep the death going.
  We must be honest about what our policy in Iraq really is.

                  [From the Arab News, June 27, 2006]

      Reconciliation in Iraq: If Only Maliki Had Freedom of Action

                            (By Linda Heard)

       If left to his own devices Iraq's new Prime Minister Nuri 
     Al-Maliki has a good chance of uniting his fractured country 
     and stamping out the violence. But there is just one problem. 
     U.S. internal politics appear to be thwarting his efforts.
       On Sunday, Al-Maliki presented his Parliament with a 24-
     point national reconciliation plan that was backed by Sunni 
     opposition figures. This included amnesty for insurgents 
     without blood on their hands, further prisoner releases, and 
     a timetable for Iraqis to takeover all aspects of their 
     country's security.
       Des Browne, Britain's defense secretary, applauded the 
     moves saying, ``There is no conflict in the world that has 
     been resolved without dealing with the issue of 
     reconciliation. Reconciliation requires risks, whether it is 
     in South Africa, Northern Ireland or the Balkans . . .''
       These are undoubtedly good steps on the road to cementing 
     various factions but earlier press releases suggest Al-
     Maliki's initial grand design has been considerably watered-
     down.
       According to a report in last Friday's Times newspaper 
     titled ``Peace deal offers Iraq insurgents an amnesty'' Al-
     Maliki was set to ``promise a finite, U.N.-approved timeline 
     for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to 
     U.S. operations against insurgent strongholds'' and an 
     amnesty to insurgents responsible for the deaths of American 
     forces.
       In the event, the above crucial points were excluded from 
     the prime minister's proposals.
       In light of the turnaround, it is almost certain that U.S. 
     officials have been busy whispering in his ear. On Thursday, 
     Democratic senators proposed a vote to begin the drawdown of 
     U.S. troops but were rebuffed by mostly Republican opponents, 
     who believe an earl pullout would empower terrorists, weaken 
     the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government and endanger the security 
     of the U.S.
       In reality, most Bush supporters perceive the argument in 
     terms of America winning or losing the war placing concerns 
     about Iraq's stability secondary. For them an imminent 
     withdrawal would be tantamount to an admission of failure or, 
     worse, surrender that they fear will affect the outcome of 
     next November's midterm elections.
       The idea that insurgents could be forgiven for the killing 
     of U.S. military personnel has also failed to sit well with 
     either members of the U.S. administration or Congress, who 
     predict public outrage.
       An article by Lincoln Lease, a U.S. Army specialist serving 
     in Baghdad, published on

[[Page 13019]]

     insidebayarea.com illustrates how some Americans might view 
     that move.
       Lease writes: ``I take personal offense to Al-Maliki's 
     proposition to grant any kind of amnesty--limited or 
     unlimited--to any insurgent who has been involved in 
     terrorism against the United States. It seems to me that Al-
     Maliki has slapped all the families of wounded or dead 
     soldiers in the face.''
       The idea that the Iraqi leader is intent on humiliating the 
     families of American soldiers or bent on offending Lincoln 
     Lease and his ilk is entirely preposterous.
       Al-Maliki faces not only the daunting task of quelling a 
     bloody insurgency; he must also rid his country of foreign 
     fighters, gain control over sectarian militias and commence 
     the rebuilding process.
       To do this he must bring his people together in a process 
     of forgiveness and reconciliation, a process that cannot be 
     effective as long as Iraqi insurgents are being labeled 
     ``terrorists'' for their attempts to oust invading armies 
     that from the standpoint of most Iraqis entered the country 
     under false pretences in the first place.
       In his article Lease asks Al-Maliki ``How can you even 
     consider the possibility of granting any kind of reprieve for 
     any insurgent? How can you view these terrorists as patriots 
     defending their country? How can you justify the murder of 
     U.S. soldiers on your streets? We came here to rebuild Iraq, 
     not to occupy it.''
       Poor Lincoln Lease has patently fallen hook, line and 
     sinker for the official line. He says, ``we came here to 
     rebuild Iraq'' while every one knows the reason given for the 
     invasion was Iraq's stockpiles of WMD which turned out to be 
     nonexistent.
       He might also be reminded that billions of dollars slated 
     for reconstruction have been channeled elsewhere or simply 
     disappeared into the ether. Moreover, his government's 
     construction of up to five permanent military bases and the 
     largest and most fortified embassy in the world indicates 
     Americans plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul.
       While it is tragic that 2,500 U.S. soldiers have lost their 
     lives since the 2003 invasion, new official figures point to 
     the deaths of 50,000 Iraqi civilians during the same period; 
     20,000 more than George W. Bush's recent estimate.
       If Lease, who began his rant by expressing his ``rage and 
     contempt'' was sincere in his concern for military families, 
     he would be backing an imminent military pullout rather than 
     focusing on his own ego-led sensibilities.
       A growing number of specialist think-tanks and Middle East 
     pundits are now of the opinion that the very presence of 
     foreign troops serves to fuel the insurgency, while evidence 
     points to the fact that far from bettering the lives of 
     Iraqis the occupation has thrust their war-torn land into an 
     abyss of desperation and despair.
       Should Lease care to relinquish his rose-colored spectacles 
     for a moment, he might care to read the recently leaked memo 
     from the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to the U.S. 
     State Department that reveals a country in turmoil, run by 
     armed militias, its people traumatized by fear.
       Dated June 6 and published by the Washington Post, the memo 
     highlights negative experiences encountered by nine members 
     of the U.S. Embassy's staff afraid to tell even family 
     members that they work for the Americans.
       It's been three years and three months since ``Shock and 
     Awe''. The Bush administration has surely had its chance to 
     bring some semblance of normality to Iraq and has failed 
     dismally. There is only one thing left for it to do and that 
     is to back off and allow Al-Maliki a free hand.
       Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was famously 
     reported as telling Bush ``if you break it, you'll own it'' 
     with reference to Iraq. That may be true but the only ones 
     who can give that country back together are the Iraqis 
     themselves. It's time they were given that chance.
                                  ____


                  [From the Daily Star, June 28, 2006]

               An Iraq Amnesty Will Split the Insurgency

                          (By Henri J. Barkey)

       The new Iraqi government is considering giving amnesty to 
     some insurgents, including those who committed attacks 
     against the United States, other coalition forces and the 
     Iraqi military. It's understandable that many U.S. soldiers 
     and other Americans would find the idea offensive. 
     Nevertheless, it is critical for the Bush administration to 
     quietly back the proposal behind the scenes.
       The details of the amnesty haven't been announced, and the 
     details are crucial. It would be a grave mistake to offer 
     amnesty to the foreign fighters who have poured into Iraq to 
     help with--or foment--the insurgency. But amnesty for former 
     Baathists and other Sunni rejectionists could help divide 
     them from their Al-Qaeda comrades, to the benefit of Iraq and 
     the U.S. However distasteful, some sort of amnesty is a 
     prerequisite for Iraqi reconciliation. American troops will 
     leave one day, and the Iraqis will have to find a way to live 
     together. If the U.S. wants to succeed in Iraq, it must put 
     Iraqi interests first.
       The killing of the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-
     Zarqawi, has created an unprecedented opportunity for the new 
     Iraqi government. Zarqawi triggered resentment not just 
     because he slaughtered civilians indiscriminately but because 
     he hogged international attention, eclipsing his homegrown 
     jihadist competitors.
       Moreover, although he controlled only a segment of the 
     Iraqi insurgency, Zarqawi had an aura of invincibility. His 
     death gives the Iraqi government a chance to divide and co-
     opt the insurgents, exploiting whatever intelligence was 
     gained in the Zarqawi raids and whatever disarray his death 
     has created to score more military gains.
       The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki enjoys more 
     legitimacy than its predecessors, and for the first time it 
     includes bona fide Sunni representatives. But it needs to 
     change the pessimistic mood in Iraq while retaining the 
     goodwill of its American backers. As a sovereign government, 
     Iraq has every right to set the terms of the amnesty, but it 
     should proceed with caution.
       An amnesty aimed only at insurgents not affiliated with Al-
     Qaeda would deepen the divide between the foreign and Iraqi 
     fighters. On the other hand, an amnesty for those who 
     perpetrated the hideous and indiscriminate bombings of 
     mosques and marketplaces would both condone terror and 
     validate the insurgents' cause. Anyone involved in recruiting 
     suicide bombers, or planning or helping execute bombing 
     attacks, should not qualify for amnesty.
       Americans will find it repugnant that those who blew up our 
     soldiers may get off scot-free. But ironically, that outcome 
     is in our best interests. An Iraqi government that insists, 
     in the face of American objections, on implementing an 
     amnesty would demonstrate to its people, especially the 
     Sunnis, that it is not a stooge of Washington, that it is 
     capable of acting independently of the Bush administration. 
     And the stronger and more independent the Iraqi government 
     is, the more likely that U.S. soldiers can come home.
       Amnesties have succeeded in ending insurgencies in many 
     other countries because they bring the rebels in from the 
     cold and undermine their support structure. Algeria, which 
     experienced some of the most violent civil strife of the 
     modern era, offered repeated amnesties, and today its 
     nightmare appears to be ending. Turkey, which has refused 
     even to consider a meaningful amnesty for its Kurdish rebels, 
     is engaged in a seemingly unending low-intensity conflict.
       Amnesties alone are not a panacea. There will always be 
     die-hards for whom the cause is too sacred or for whom 
     violence is a raison d'etre. Still, every militant has an 
     extended family network. These relatives are unwittingly 
     drafted into the conflict; they are likely to worry about 
     their sons' or brothers' fates, to be extremely antagonistic 
     toward the authority pursuing them and to help fighters evade 
     their pursuers. A meaningful amnesty, accompanied by a 
     counterinsurgency campaign, can turn these relatives into 
     allies. They will, often for their own sakes, put pressure on 
     fighters to take advantage of such an offer.
       In Iraq, the jihadists Zarqawi trained will not lay down 
     their arms, but their Iraqi brethren may do so--and betray 
     the foreigners to save their own skins. Even a few such 
     victories would give the counterinsurgency momentum and the 
     Maliki government breathing space. A decisive victory against 
     the Iraqi insurgency could take a decade or more. But 
     Washington and Baghdad have demonstrated that they can be 
     allies for the long haul. Washington can best demonstrate its 
     commitment to the new government accepting an Iraqi amnesty 
     that allows Maliki to give his foes a reason to lay down 
     their arms.
                                  ____


                  [From the Daily Star, June 27, 2006]

 Sovereignty Is Just a Word on Paper Until Iraq Is Allowed To Run its 
                              Own Affairs

       Back in June 2004, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul 
     Bremer, handed a leather-bound document to then-interim Prime 
     Minister Iyad Allawi, and with this symbolic gesture 
     pronounced Iraq a free and sovereign state. One could easily 
     challenge the fantasy that the Americans ever really owned 
     Iraq's sovereignty and could return it or withhold it as they 
     pleased. But in addition, one could easily challenge the idea 
     that the Iraqis have been ``granted'' any sovereignty at all.
       Although sovereignty was long ago transferred, the Iraqis 
     remain on the receiving end of a 9,996-kilometer screwdriver 
     that officials in Washington still wield in their effort to 
     shape the future of Iraq. The most recent example of U.S. 
     tutelage at work was the amending of an amnesty plan put 
     forth by Premier Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday. An earlier version 
     offered to pardon Iraqi insurgents who have attacked U.S. 
     troops. But after a series of closed-door talks between U.S. 
     and Iraqi officials, Maliki announced a watered-down version 
     of the amnesty, one which is unlikely to lure any of the 
     major insurgent groups that aren't already participating in 
     the political process.
       It is understandable that U.S. officials would react with 
     outrage to the idea of forgiving insurgents with American 
     blood on their hands. As Senator Carl Levin said, ``the idea 
     that they should even consider talking about amnesty for 
     people who have killed

[[Page 13020]]

     people who liberated their country is unconscionable.'' But 
     Senator Levin and others like him seem to forget that 
     liberating something means setting it free.
       The Iraqis need the space to make hard decisions that will 
     help them restore stability in their country. But they will 
     never find this space so long as U.S. officials continue to 
     micro-manage the Iraqi government according to their own 
     plan. What the Iraqis really need most now is what the 
     Americans promised them long ago: freedom. And that ought to 
     include the freedom to govern their own country in a way that 
     will benefit the Iraqi people.

                          ____________________