[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22052-22053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              IRAQ POLICY

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I may request to speak 
for a few more minutes than 5, and when the time comes, I will so 
inform the Chair.
  Last week the American people went to the polls across our great 
Nation. They went not simply to choose new political leaders, but to 
ask those leaders--Democrats and Republicans alike--to work together 
for a new and long-overdue direction in Iraq.
  There is no doubt that the majority of American voters want change in 
an Iraq policy that has brought such death and chaos and the prospect 
of failure. There is no doubt that they want us to speak honestly about 
the current failures and boldly about the way through the present 
crisis. But it is also very clear that Americans are not defeatists. 
They want success in Iraq, they want our troops to succeed, and they 
want them to come home.
  I note as I speak here there are hearings occurring in the Armed 
Services Committee. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for 
holding such a hearing. They heard this morning from some of our 
leading military figures. This afternoon there will be additional 
witnesses appearing before them. So I am very conscious that a lot of 
people are thinking about this issue now and that we hope to come up 
with some positive suggestions on how we might come to a successful 
conclusion of this policy--a policy, I might add, that is in deep 
jeopardy of failure.
  In that respect, the message of the American people was one of hope: 
that years of strained, painful debate can give way to American 
pragmatism; that leaders can find in national security not a political 
cudgel but a political consensus; and that Iraq, even now, is not past 
salvaging, if we right our course immediately.
  I hope the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld is a sign that the White 
House has heard that message. But I would add very quickly that it is 
not enough to change the leadership at the Pentagon when a week ago 
Sunday the Vice President of the United States proclaimed that we 
intend to go, and I quote him, ``full-speed ahead'' in Iraq. The 
President must fundamentally change our Iraq policies if we are to 
reverse the downward spiral into chaos that threatens the territorial 
integrity of that country and our larger regional security interests--
as well as the success of our war on al-Qaida and international 
terrorism.
  In the midst of an election season, some of America's best foreign 
policy minds were working diligently to find that new direction. We are 
lucky to have two distinguished former public servants to chair the 
Study Group on Iraq: the former Secretary of State James Baker and the 
former Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Lee 
Hamilton. Their group of experts is striving diligently to find 
consensus on a set of policy recommendations to put before the 
President and the Congress of the United States. It is painful work, 
but it is necessary work. And the tragedy of Iraq--over 30,000 injured 
troops, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, more than 2,800 
of our fellow citizens in uniform killed--the tragedy of Iraq demands 
nothing less than a new direction and some new thought.
  It will take every dram of our honesty and pragmatism to turn around 
a society that--despite $400 billion of taxpayer money, $250 million 
every single day and still counting--remains broken, crippled, and 
fractured. The Iraqi economy is in worse shape today than it was in 
March of 2003. Electric and water treatment capacity, oil production, 
access to clean water, are all below prewar levels. America has spent 
$14 billion training and equipping 300,000 Iraqi police and security 
forces; yet today as I speak on the floor of this Chamber, some 23 
separate sectarian militias alone operate with impunity throughout 
Baghdad. Sectarian killings continue largely unabated, averaging scores 
of deaths a day.
  These realities mean that none of us should underestimate the 
difficulties ahead. We need to recognize--every single time we talk 
about this matter--the remarkable service being performed by our men 
and women in uniform. Theirs is a very difficult job. Anyone who has 
been there, regardless of his or her views on policy, has to admire 
immensely the courage and determination of these people as they go out 
every single day, facing the kinds of problems that are everywhere in 
the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, and other major urban areas. So I do 
not underestimate the tremendous burden these people bear every single 
day, as too often they become nothing more than target practice for 
those who seek to gain the upper hand in Iraq.
  Nor do I underestimate the difficult task facing Jim Baker, Lee 
Hamilton, and their colleagues on this task force that is determined to 
find some answers to Iraq. They know, as I do, if there were any easy 
solutions we would have discovered them by now. It may be that members 
of the Baker-Hamilton commission will not be able to arrive at a 
consensus. I hope that is not the case. But I have no doubt that their 
efforts are taking place in a constructive and bipartisan spirit and we 
here should do everything we can to follow their example in the weeks 
and months ahead.
  I hope to add briefly to that debate by sharing some of my own 
thoughts this afternoon. Taken individually, none of these proposals 
that I am going to discuss are groundbreaking or earthshattering in any 
way. A sound foreign policy rarely is. But after a war sparked by 
ideology and grand theorizing, maybe we can once more learn the value 
of quiet virtues. Taken together, I believe these suggestions might 
help to reverse the ongoing spiral into violence and chaos, permit the 
phased redeployment of U.S. troops within and from Iraq, and secure 
America's regional interests to the greatest extent.
  Clearly, our interests are in disrepair, and other regions cry out 
for attention. We are further away from stabilizing Afghanistan and 
dealing a mortal blow to our al-Qaida and Taliban enemies. In fact, 
drug traffickers and tribal warfare now threaten to destroy the fragile 
foundation of Afghanistan's nascent democracy and the Taliban is 
stronger now than at any point since our invasion.
  This summer an emboldened and defiant Iran launched a proxy war 
against our ally Israel; and the apocalyptic mullahs are undeterred in 
their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
  Last month North Korea claimed to have tested a nuclear weapon of its 
own, a further example of our country's growing vulnerabilities, a 
further cost of this administration's fixation on Iraq. While we have 
been bogged down in that country, North Korea has taken the chance to 
expand its nuclear arsenal fivefold.
  Al-Qaida, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea--the conclusion is 
irrefutable: America is less safe today because of our Iraq diversion. 
That is precisely why so many voices among our civilian and military 
leadership are calling upon the President to change course in that 
country.
  I believe there are five key ingredients to any course change that we 
must take: establishment of internal security in that country; phased 
redeployment of United States forces; continued training of an 
independent, professional military and security force for Iraq; a 
strong central government; and regional and international engagement.
  Let me first talk briefly about security. I think we must continue to 
recruit and train forces that reflect Iraq's ethnic diversity, forces 
that are capable of neutralizing sectarian militias and are able to 
restore and maintain domestic stability. Without that,

[[Page 22053]]

nothing is likely to happen. But I believe the hour has arrived when 
Iraq must assume the responsibility for policing itself. At great cost, 
the United States has given the Iraqi people the chance for a much 
brighter future. Now they must seize it. There is not a treasury deep 
enough nor an army large enough to achieve this goal if the Iraqi 
people themselves lack the will to achieve it for themselves.
  Second, redeployment. ``More troops or fewer troops'' is a sterile 
debate. The reality is that in cities such as Baghdad and Falluja, our 
soldiers are going door to door like a police force on the front lines 
of religious violence, and they need to be removed from that fruitless 
exercise. Our troops should be relocated from these larger urban zones 
to less populated regions and border areas where they can more 
effectively advance our strategic interests: continued training of 
Iraqi forces and the protection of Iraq's territorial integrity until 
Iraqis can do so for themselves.
  Remaining United States forces should be repositioned to United 
States bases in Kuwait and Qatar, where they could be available to 
protect American interests if they should be called upon, and to 
Afghanistan, where we must redouble our efforts to capture bin Laden, 
dismantle al-Qaida and neutralize the Taliban and the drug lords who 
are funding them.
  These movements must begin immediately and continue over the next 12 
to 18 months, in concert with our efforts to enhance the stability of 
the Iraqi Government, engage Iraq's neighbors, and build a better and 
more secure life for the people of that country.
  Third is professional military and security forces. Iraq will never 
be unified as a sovereign and secure nation until all of its citizens 
can count on the Iraqi forces to be capable of maintaining internal 
stability and protecting the nation's territorial integrity. But no 
Iraqi Army can ever meaningfully stand up when Iraq's political 
atmosphere remains so poisonous.
  Which leads me to my fourth point, unity government. Our commanding 
generals have rightly concluded there is no military solution to Iraq's 
unfolding civil conflict. Only a political solution which unifies all 
Iraqis around a common cause will save Iraq from becoming a failed 
state.
  So, along with the training of Iraqi troops, I believe we must tackle 
Iraq's political chaos, because only stability will be the cornerstone 
of a prosperous nation.
  Finding common cause must come first and foremost from within Iraq. 
It must come from Iraq's secular and religious leaders, leaders such as 
Ayatollah Sistani. We need Iraqis like him at the table and the United 
States needs to encourage more acts of leadership by him and others.
  Our political goals for Iraq are clear. Though Iraq's constitution is 
federal, with local flexibility for provinces, we must insist on a 
stable and unified central government, capable of distributing 
resources to its citizens on a just basis. Iraq's oil must be shared 
equitably. At the end of the day, Iraq may end up a divided and 
partitioned state where sectarian influences govern; but that should 
not be our stated policy. Nor should we allow short-term political 
expediency to keep us from disbanding sectarian militias. Our failure 
to confront them head-on forces uncountable Iraqis to live in daily 
fear for their very lives.
  That said, I believe we should not preclude the possibility of 
integrating ex-militia members into the professional Iraqi military--
but only if they be vetted and retrained first.
  Fifth and finally, regional and international engagement. Iraq's 
neighbors have a huge stake in a stable and competent Iraq. If there is 
one thing that unites all of the nations bordering Iraq, it is the fear 
that Iraq will splinter into fractured enclaves with dedicated 
sectarian militias that will not only terrorize each other but threaten 
the stability of the nations that border them.
  It is for that reason that the administration should find willing 
partners--if it were willing to look. Iraq's neighbors, as well as 
regional international organizations can help Iraq toward unity and 
stability--not from the goodness of their hearts but from the fact of 
their interest. Regional powers such as Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Saudi 
Arabia could be enormously useful to us as mediators--a ``Friends of 
Iraq'' group, committed to ensuring the integrity of its borders, the 
disbanding of the militias, and the unity of its government.
  When it comes to protecting our security, we must be as willing to 
wage diplomacy as we have been willing to wage war. Robust, muscular, 
and direct negotiations are not gifts to our enemies. They are the 
essential tools of avoiding conflict and securing peace and stability.
  We are reminded of the eloquence of John Kennedy, who said many years 
ago, ``Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to 
negotiate.''
  Further, rebuilding Iraq's economy should be a part of any regional 
and international rescue mission. The Iraqi Government has formally 
requested help from the United States to develop an International 
Compact for Iraq. This compact could serve as a blueprint for a new 
partnership with the international community, one aimed at 
consolidating peace and pursuing political, social, and economic 
development over the next five years.
  There are no guarantees, of course. Iraq is broken. The policies of 
the Bush administration, in my view, have sadly failed. But last week's 
elections have given us the gift of opportunity--to chart a new course 
in Iraq if we are honest enough, tough enough, and bold enough to find 
it.
  Reducing and withdrawing our troop presence. Restoring security. 
Supporting the development of a unified Iraqi Government. Enlisting 
Iraq's neighbors and the international community. Creating economic 
activity in that shattered country. If we take these steps, or ones 
like them, we can serve our larger interests in peace and prosperity 
and security, not only for the Iraqis but, as importantly, for 
ourselves. We can begin to redeem a great harm.
  The American voters have asked this us of us. While they don't have a 
specific plan in mind, they want us to come together, to chart a new 
course, to make some sense, to be rational and think about the 
importance not only of Iraq getting on its feet--but of our nation 
meriting its vital role in the world. No other nation in the 21st 
century is going to lead but this great nation of ours. Other nations 
down the road may assume that responsibility, but as far as I can see, 
only one nation can lead now--and it is ours. And if we continue on the 
path we are following today in Iraq, that mission will be far more 
difficult to fulfill.
  So far more is at risk here than just what happens in Iraq. We risk 
failing the calling of leadership itself.
  Anything I suggested here, I know others have raised. But I came here 
today, above all, to ask a question: Who is thinking about this in a 
concrete way? I trust that Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton are. I hope that 
my colleagues are.
  You may not like all of my ideas. You may reject all of them. But 
whatever ideas come to the fore, let us debate the substance in 
tolerance and good faith, open to new thinking and hungering for new 
action.
  The American people are watching us, wondering if we have heard their 
call for a new way forward. The Iraqi people are watching us, wondering 
if their united country can still survive and succeed. Americans and 
Iraqis both want what it is within our power to give them: hope.
  Again, I thank the President for his indulgence in providing a little 
more time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.

                          ____________________