[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6537-6539]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            STRATEGY IN IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we reflect on the Presidency of George 
W. Bush, there were moments of high drama. Certainly, the moment of 
highest drama in my recollection was when the President visited the 
site of the 9/11 attack. When he went to New York and walked through 
the smoke-filled rubble with the firefighters and the workmen still 
digging through, it was a moment that I am sure will endure. It will be 
remembered.
  If you had to then select another moment in his Presidency that will 
be remembered, it was a moment 3 years ago today when the President of 
the United States boarded a Naval fighter plane and flew to land on the 
deck of USS Abraham Lincoln.
  It was a time when America wasn't certain about what had happened in 
Iraq. We had launched an invasion. Saddam Hussein had been deposed. 
There were still a lot of questions about the future of Iraq and what 
would happen in that country.
  The President of the United States came to that aircraft carrier on 
that day, and as he landed and spoke to those who were assembled, 
behind him was a banner which read ``Mission Accomplished.'' It was on 
May 1, 2003, 3 years ago. The President said on that day:

       In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies 
     have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing 
     and restructuring that country.

  The President went on to say:

       We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order 
     to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're 
     pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be 
     held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for 
     hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of 
     hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to 
     build Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself 
     instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the 
     new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, 
     and for the Iraqi people.

  The President went on to say 3 years ago:

       From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we 
     are hunting down al-Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago, I 
     pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient 
     justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-
     half of al-Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or 
     killed.

  That was the speech of the President of the United States 3 years ago 
today.
  Since the President made that speech, this is the grim record. Since 
that day, over the last 3 years, 2,262 Americans have been killed and 
17,202 Americans have been wounded.
  This occurred after the President announced to the world that our 
mission was accomplished.
  As we gather today to mark the third anniversary of that Presidential 
statement, war continues with no end in sight, and 2,401 of our best 
and bravest soldiers have given their lives. I have called many of 
those families from Illinois. I have attended some of the funerals. I 
know the lives of those families will never be the same. They have 
given so much to this country. We thank them. We will continue to thank 
them over and over again. We thank the men and women in uniform for 
continuing to stand and fight to defend this country and its values. 
They represent the very best. We should never forget that.
  But we now know that within their ranks--even at the highest levels--
there have been serious concerns about this administration and its 
strategy in Iraq.
  Three years after President Bush's statement on that carrier that our 
mission was accomplished, several leading generals, men who served 
under the President at that time, men under his command, men who were 
responsible for the lives of thousands of soldiers and marines, now 
retired, in civilian status, have stepped forward. What have they said?
  Retired LTG Gregory Newbold, the three-star Marine Corps general who 
served as the Nation's top operations officer before the invasion of 
Iraq, recently joined a number of his former colleagues and said:

       I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments 
     of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful 
     visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have 
     been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but 
     unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning 
     from

[[Page 6538]]

     this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid 
     in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a 
     load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and 
     military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must 
     be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as 
     honorable as the sacrifice.

  General Newbold continued:

       My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to 
     this fight was done with the casualness and a swagger that 
     are the special province of those who have never had to 
     execute these missions--or bury the results.

  Finally, the general said:

       We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first 
     step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to 
     fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle 
     East have performed their duty. Now we need people in 
     Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of 
     them. It is time to send a signal to our Nation, our forces 
     and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but 
     are prepared to rethink how we achieve it.

  General Newbold is joined in this call for change by GEN Anthony 
Zinni; MG Paul D. Eaton; MG John Batiste; MG Charles Swannack, Jr.; and 
MG John Riggs, all retired.
  If you look at the resumes of these men, you will find the very best 
in service to our country. General Eaton, who headed up training for 
the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004--what did he say? I quote him:

       Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead 
     America's Armed Forces.

  General Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, one 
of the most storied and honored divisions in American military 
history--here is what he said:

       I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to 
     fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the 
     war against Saddam in Iraq.

  These generals are calling for change at the highest level. How many 
times during the course of this war when the President was questioned 
about his military strategy did he say: I defer to the generals; I 
defer to the military professionals. This will not be a political 
decision.
  That is the right response. But what would he now say when these six 
men, many of whom served under his command, have stepped forward and 
said that the plan for this war is so wrong and that the man executing 
that plan as Secretary of Defense is not the right person for that job?
  I have said publicly, and I will repeat it. I believe Secretary 
Rumsfeld, for the good of this Nation, should leave as Secretary of 
Defense. I believe this for the same reason these generals do. I do not 
believe he can lead us to the right conclusion in Iraq, and we will pay 
a heavy price if we do not acknowledge that.
  As General Zinni has said, staying the course in Iraq sends us right 
over Niagara Falls. We have to change the course. We have to understand 
why change is imperative. It is worth taking a few minutes to 
understand how we have reached this point some 3 years after President 
Bush told the world our mission was accomplished.
  Recently, Secretary of State Rice stated the United States has made 
thousands of ``tactical errors.'' Secretary Rumsfeld challenged her, 
and said: ``I don't know what she is talking about.''
  She was right. The administration has made numerous and tragically 
costly mistakes in Iraq. Think about it. The decision to invade without 
allies--with only the United Kingdom as a major force by our side, and 
many other countries sending smaller forces, we went in virtually 
alone. It was a strategic misjudgement that has left us today carrying 
the military and financial burdens in Iraq.
  Before us on the floor of the Senate is another spending bill for 
Iraq--this one over $100 billion. The total no one can guess, but $320 
billion so far, more than $2 billion a week.
  My situation is like some in the Senate. I voted against the use-of-
force resolution for the war in Iraq--23 of us did, 1 Republican and 22 
Democrats on that October night in 2002. But I said from my memory of 
what happened in Vietnam, as I tried my best to appreciate what our 
soldiers faced, that I would vote for every penny that this President 
asked for to wage this war so that the soldiers would always have what 
they needed to win and come home safely. And I have done that. I will 
continue to do that.
  When my critics ask: How can you be against the war and vote to fund 
it? The question comes down to something very basic from where I am 
standing. If it were my son or daughter serving in uniform in that 
country, I would want them to have everything to come home safely, even 
if I bitterly disagreed with the administration's policy that sent them 
into this war.
  We have 132,000 soldiers in Iraq today. Our combined allies have 
24,000, some of whom are in Kuwait. Mr. President, 2,401 Americans have 
died. That is more than 10 times the losses that have been suffered by 
the rest of the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
  This record-setting supplemental bill that we take up this week in 
the Senate will bring the cost of U.S. operations in Iraq to $280 
billion. For now, as I have said: I am going to vote for it. But before 
this Congress continues to fund, we have to ask hard questions.
  If this is going to be a routine vote for the so-called emergency 
supplemental bill, if this is going to be routine to the point where we 
don't even question the policies and strategies of the war that we are 
voting for, then we have failed in our responsibilities as Senators.
  On February 25, 2003, the Army Chief of Staff, GEN Eric Shinseki, 
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  General Shinseki stated, in an invasion of Iraq, that ``any postwar 
occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a 
country with ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.''
  General Shinseki was asked how many troops are needed, and he said:

       Something on the order of several hundred thousand 
     soldiers.

  He also said:

       Assistance from friend and allies would be helpful.

  General Shinseki did not get the 300,000 or 400,000 troops that he 
and many others thought would be needed nor did we get the allies. 
General Shinseki, for his candor and honesty, was replaced in his 
command. This administration was not about to stand still for someone 
in uniform telling them the stark, honest truth, that without enough 
soldiers the ones we sent would be in danger.
  And just as Economic Adviser Larry Lindsay was fired for predicting 
the war would cost $100 to $200 billion at a time the administration 
said it might not cost anything because Iraqi oil would pay for it. 
That was Mr. Wolfowitz who made that statement. The fact is, they were 
right, the critics were wrong, and we have suffered as a result.
  There was a failure by the leaders in our Government to see this 
insurgency that came about in Iraq, that endangered our soldiers and 
destabilized that country for so long.
  When Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the reaction of the 
insurgents and the uncertainty on the ground, he said:

       Freedom's untidy.

  In fact, the looting was the start of the postinvasion violence that 
has claimed 94 percent of the American lives lost in Iraq.
  Secretary Rumsfeld also signed off on another critical strategic 
misjudgment. The decision after the invasion to immediately disband the 
Iraqi Army made it easier for the insurgency.
  We remember what happened when the Secretary went to Iraq in a 
surprise visit. Soldiers greeted him. He took questions. The Tennessee 
guardsman asked: Mr. Secretary, why do I have to dig through the dump 
to find pieces of metal to put in my humvee to protect me and my fellow 
soldiers? Why don't we have modern equipment to protect us on the 
ground? The Secretary was at a loss for words. He was embarrassed. 
America should have been embarrassed to send our soldiers into battle 
without the equipment they needed.
  Since the beginning of the war, a troubling pattern has emerged. 
Under Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, the Pentagon has been very slow to 
respond to the needs of our troops in the field.

[[Page 6539]]

  In December 2003, LTG Ricardo Sanchez identified critical shortages 
and protective equipment for our troops and lack of spare parts for 
combat equipment, providing proof our soldiers were not adequately 
supplied.
  By mid-2004, a furor broke out when reports reached Washington, DC, 
that many humvee vehicles in Iraq did not have armor, and American 
soldiers and marines using them were being maimed and killed by IEDs as 
a result.
  Congress flooded Defense budgets with funding for vehicle armor to 
replace or improve inadequately protected vehicles. Even after news 
coverage of this lack of planning forced Secretary Rumsfeld to 
accelerate production of the armor, the Pentagon missed at least three 
self-imposed deadlines to fully field armor all of our troops--this 
after the President told us our mission had been accomplished.
  A defining moment for Secretary Rumsfeld was when that Tennessee 
guardsman challenged him. Here is what the guardsman asked:

       Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for 
     pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to 
     uparmor our vehicles?

  Secretary Rumsfeld replied, in part:

       You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army 
     you want.

  That is our Secretary of Defense, speaking of the Army he had, not 
the Army he wanted.
  Let me remind everyone the decision to invade was the decision of the 
United States of America. We picked the date. We picked the time. We 
established when readiness would be adequate. And sadly, it was not.
  That conversation with the guardsman from Tennessee revealed another 
destructive tendency. Secretary Rumsfeld has seemingly forgotten about 
the tremendous role our Guard and Reserve have played in this war and 
must be prepared to play at home. The condition of the gear and 
equipment from our Guard and Reserve continues to rapidly deteriorate.
  Last week, I went to the Illinois National Guard Camp Lincoln in 
Springfield, meeting with the officers and asking them about equipment. 
Eighty percent of their men and women and units have been activated in 
Iraq. They have left behind wornout, damaged, and destroyed equipment, 
obviously, came back empty-handed, and now do not have the fundamental 
equipment they need to train the guardsman to be able to respond to 
domestic emergencies in my home State of Illinois. Our situation is not 
unique. Across the United States, Guard and Reserve have only 34 
percent of the equipment they need in the United States.
  The true cost of this war is not just in the lives and the injuries 
and the budgets but the fact that we have left our military, our Guard 
and Reserve, ill equipped, unprepared, for the next challenge. That is 
a sad condemnation of an administration that did not think through this 
commitment, that did not understand that mission would not truly be 
accomplished for years and years after the President made that claim.
  As a result of ``going to war with the Army you have,'' and 
inadequate logistical plans, our Army and Marine units on the ground in 
Iraq are continuing to struggle with repairing, rebuilding, and 
replacing equipment used by up to 3 years of sustained effort.
  In testimony before Congress last year, U.S. Army GEN Richard Cody, 
the vice chief of staff of the Army, stated:

       We are equip-stretched, let there no doubt about it . . . 
     this Army started this war not fully equipped.

  What excuse is there for that, that we sent our Army, our Marines, 
all of the men and women in uniform, over to this war without the 
proper equipment?
  The failures on the part of the Secretary of Defense to bring a large 
enough occupation force to ensure the force was properly equipped or to 
plan for the emergency of full-scale insurgency against United States 
represents strategic errors of great significance. The strategic 
blindness continues today.
  As I said, at least Secretary Rice acknowledges errors were made. 
When asked about her statement, Secretary Rumsfeld said:

       I don't know what she was talking about, to be perfectly 
     honest.

  After 3 years of war, Secretary Rumsfeld does not know what the 
Secretary of State is talking about when she says that thousands of 
mistakes were made.
  We need someone who can recognize the reality before him and 
acknowledge that we need to change course in Iraq.
  Last fall, the Senate, by a vote of 79 to 19, declared calendar year 
2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi 
sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the 
security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions 
for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces.
  What does that mean? It is time for the Iraqis to stand and govern 
their own nation. It is time for the Iraqi people to stand and defend 
their own nation. How many years have we been promised that Iraqi 
soldiers and police were this close to replacing American soldiers? You 
have a right to be skeptical because we have yet to see the first 
American soldier replaced by an Iraqi soldier taking their place, 
standing guard for their own country.
  Secretary Rumsfeld has not been able to create the conditions that 
will allow for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We are a long way 
from accomplishing our mission.
  Early this month, Congress received the first report from the Bush 
administration required by the year of transition amendment. The 
administration report offers the same ideological blind spots that led 
to the ``mission accomplished'' claim in 2003. It shows the same lack 
of vision that failed to predict insurgency. There are no mentions of 
militia. There is no analysis of the dangers of civil war. They still 
see only what they want to see.
  I believe Secretary Rumsfeld should resign. But I in no way hold him 
solely responsible for the decisions on Iraq. After all, he works for 
the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.
  In order to find our way out of this disastrous mess this 
administration has made in Iraq, the President clearly needs new 
leadership in Defense. And that is not just my opinion. It is the 
opinion of these retired generals--men who have given their lives to 
this country, men whose hearts were broken as they watched their 
soldiers and marines killed in battle, men who visited these veterans 
in the hospitals, men who reflected on where we are today and how we 
reached it and came to the same conclusion.
  We need a new direction. We need new leadership. We need to have 
someone in the Department of Defense and a strategy that will lead to 
our troops coming home, the sooner the better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________