[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11278-11282]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE IRAQI WAR DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as a Democratic member of the 
House Armed Services Committee to try to place the upcoming debate we 
will have tomorrow on the Iraqi war resolution into context.
  It is very important that people realize that we do not get to vote 
on general ideas here in Congress. We get to vote on specific pieces of 
legislation. The case tomorrow will be H. Res. 861. I encourage not 
only our colleagues here, but folks across America, to look this up on 
the Internet and see what you think of it.
  My guess is, and while there are many varied opinions on this 
controversial war, my guess is that when you actually read the 
resolution, you will find that there is remarkably little in it that is 
controversial.
  Now, you know that resolutions are primarily composed of whereas 
clauses, which have really no effect, and then there are a few resolved 
clauses. In this resolution, you will find that there are only seven 
resolved clauses. Let me read them to you.
  They say, resolved that the House of Representatives one, honors all 
those Americans who have taken an active part in the global war on 
terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as service 
Members overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers or in other 
roles.
  That, to me, is uncontroversial. We must praise our troops.
  Point two, we honor the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces 
and of the partners in the coalition and of the Iraqis and Afghans who 
fought alongside them, especially those who have fallen or have been 
wounded in the struggle, and we honor as well the sacrifice of their 
families and of others who risked their lives to help defend freedom.
  Who is against that?
  Point three, we declare that it is not in the national security 
interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the 
withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq.
  Now, while that point can be controversial among some individuals, no 
Member of this House wants to do anything to give our terrorist foes an 
advantage. So it is very important that we realize that even this 
point, number three, I think, if seen in the proper light, is pretty 
uncontroversial.
  Point four, we declare that the United States is committed to the 
completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and 
united Iraq. That to me means that Iraq will no longer be a haven of 
terrorists. It will no longer be a play thing for a brutal dictator 
like Saddam Hussein. So that to me is another point that should be 
uncontroversial.
  Point five, we congratulate Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the 
Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating and 
increasing millions in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of 
the first government under Iraq's new constitution.
  I think all Americans were impressed to see some 70 percent of the 
eligible Iraqi population braving gunfire, braving bullets in order to 
go vote. I wish we had that level of participation in our own country.
  Point six, the resolution calls on the nations of the world to 
promote global peace and security by standing with the United States 
and other coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and 
Afghan people to live in freedom.
  Who is against that?
  Finally, point seven, we declare that the United States will prevail 
in the global war on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from 
the terrorist adversary.
  This is a resolution we will debate for some 10 hours tomorrow. I 
think when you get down to it, there is really very little that is 
controversial about it. But the context is somewhat controversial, 
because under the rules of debate tomorrow we will not be allowed to 
amend or change this document in any way. We will be required to accept 
it as if it were perfect. Every American has suggestions for change.
  There are many ways, countless ways that this document could be made 
better, but we will not be allowed to consider any of those, because 
under the procedures laid down by the Republican majority they do not 
want to hear any alteration to this document.
  That is one flaw in the debate we will have tomorrow. Another is that 
this is really not a debate about how best to win the war on terrorism. 
This is more of a public relations campaign 3 years into a very 
controversial war designed to try to make the administration look 
better.
  I am not against any administration trying to improve its public 
image. But for the safety of our troops, this debate is 3 or 4 years 
late.
  I had the privilege of serving in this House during the first Iraq 
war, and that debate went down in history under the first President 
Bush as one of the best debates in modern American history. But that 
was under the first President Bush.
  That first conflict, which followed the rules of the Powell Doctrine 
of defending an explicit American interest of going in with 
overwhelming force and having a clear exit strategy, sadly, in this 
conflict, the Powell Doctrine was not followed, even though General 
Powell was second as Secretary of State of the George W. Bush 
administration during the onset of this war.
  That is another clear difference from the Iraqi war of the past and 
another clear flaw in this debate that this resolution will be debated 
several years late. In a sense this is going to be a debate that is 
unworthy of our troops, because some 2,500 Americans have already died, 
almost 20,000 are casualties. Now, the House of Representatives is 
getting around to having a debate on the war in Iraq, a debate that 
allows no amendment, no change. We have to accept this as if it were 
perfect.
  There is another lesson that we should take into account, because you 
know that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. I 
almost wish we could repeat the experience in the first Iraq war, 
because under the first President Bush he was so persuasive with a 
broad coalition of partners around the world that of the $60- to $80 
billion cost of that war, the American taxpayer only had to pay for 
about $2- to $4 billion, $2- to $4 billion, the total cost of the first 
Iraq war to the American taxpayer. Why? Because our allies were so 
eager to bear the burden of cost of the war, the first Iraq war.
  Now, of course, we are involved in a conflict which has already cost 
a minimum of $350 billion, but according to other estimates, more 
likely $450 billion, and it looks as if it is headed towards $1 
trillion, and almost all of that burden is put on the backs of the 
American taxpayer.
  Allied contributions verge on the negligible. You may remember that

[[Page 11279]]

Jim Baker, former Secretary of State, former Secretary of Treasury, was 
sent around the world to collect contributions from allies.
  Well, where is the money? Show me the money? Our allies have put up a 
few billion dollars, but the American taxpayer has been required to 
shoulder the burden of this war. Of course, running massive budget 
deficits, as the George W. Bush administration has been doing, 
effectively we have been borrowing much of the cost of the war from 
foreign nations.

                              {time}  2100

  Increasingly Nations like China, increasingly Nations that are oil 
rich like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nations like that are seeking 
to reinvest petro dollars.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, does that make America stronger when we are 
increasingly dependent on foreign lenders, many of which are not our 
allies but may, in fact, be adversary? Does that make us a stronger, 
better Nation?
  Mr. Speaker, in the first Iraq War we were very careful not to damage 
the American military. Our troops went in for a limited purpose, with 
an overwhelming number, and exited in a very safe and prompt fashion. 
That is not the policy today, even though President George W. Bush is 
the son of the first President Bush.
  So, all of these changes should worry us, especially those men and 
women in uniform, because I am an advocate of letting the military be 
the military. We have never had a finer fighting force than the one we 
have today. It is an all-volunteer force. Our men and women in uniform 
are terrifically capable. It is incredible the challenges that they 
have met and overcome, oftentimes without the help of their superiors, 
because especially their civilian superiors in this war consistently 
underestimated the threat that our troops faced.
  When our troops first went in, they were told that they might face a 
few Baathists dead-enders, and of course, our civilian leaders 
disbanded the Iraqi military, created all sorts of extra problems for 
our troops. We could not even control looting in Baghdad, the major 
city in Iraq.
  So, soon, disorder prevailed, and pretty soon we were on the verge of 
an insurgency that our civilian leadership in the Pentagon was claiming 
it was really not much of a problem. Victory was always around the 
corner. The President appeared on an aircraft carrier and declared that 
the mission was accomplished.
  Well, that was, at best, premature. Now we are hoping and praying the 
Nation of Iraq is not on the verge of civil war, and let us not forget 
Afghanistan, where we have a smaller troop commitment that is still a 
vital one, and as the NATO forces try to take over from our men and 
women in uniform, we should be very much concerned because the Taliban 
seems to be on the rise.
  General Barry McCaffrey just returned from Afghanistan and briefed us 
last week and said that the Taliban fighters were better equipped than 
the NATO forces, better equipped, in some cases, than the American 
forces. Well, where is the Taliban getting all its money? Probably from 
the drug trade because Afghanistan, as most observers are aware, has 
once again become one of the leading drug exporting countries in the 
world. Their poppy production has exploded. We have done very little, 
if anything, about it, and that is financing not only the Taliban but 
other forms of illicit terrorist behavior, not only in that country but 
around the world.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this debate comes to us in a tough context. It makes 
it hard for men and women of goodwill to focus on the text of this 
resolution, as praiseworthy as it is. It also makes it difficult for 
some Members to acknowledge with a joyful heart the good news that we 
have received recently in Iraq.
  All Americans should be pleased that we have caught and killed 
Zarqawi, one of the most notorious terrorists in the history of the 
world, a man who reveled in beheadings of innocent people, who killed 
fellow Muslims with abandon, all to promote his warped ideology, his 
non-Islamic ideology.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being in Baghdad the day that we 
caught Saddam Hussein. That was a high point in the war in Iraq. That 
was a moment at which our troops were filled with hope and anticipation 
that the conflict would not last for many, many years. That the 
Baathist dead-enders and other Saddam supporters would quickly turn 
toward more peaceful pursuits.
  But sadly, as we know now, we were not ready for what came 
afterwards. We were not prepared for a franchising or spreading of the 
terrorist threat. Some people view it as a nationalist threat. Perhaps 
it is a tribal threat. There certainly are serious divisions between 
the Kurds, Sunnis and the Shiias, but we should be prepared this time 
for whatever follows the capture and death of Zarqawi because there are 
many other enemies in that country who would love to exploit any 
weakness that they see in the American forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on. I see that my colleague from the 
Intelligence Committee has joined us here tonight, and I do not want to 
rush him into this, but I welcome Mr. Ruppersberger's participation in 
this debate. He is an outstanding Member of this body and of the 
Intelligence Committee which is, of course, privy to our Nation's 
deepest secrets.
  So he bears that position with distinction and honor, and I welcome 
Mr. Ruppersberger to comment at this point.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Mr. Cooper for 
yielding this time to me.
  I just returned from my fourth visit to Iraq with Speaker Hastert and 
two other Members of Congress, and after this recent trip, I am more 
convinced than ever that the time has come to change U.S. strategy in 
Iraq.
  The ultimate goal is to establish a free, open and democratic Iraqi 
government and bring our men and women in uniform home.
  I believe the best way to do this is to have the Iraqi security 
forces, specifically the Iraqi Army and military, take on 
responsibility of patrolling and securing their own country. I believe 
we must move American and coalition troops to the perimeter of the 
urban areas and let the Iraqi military patrol the streets of their 
cities.
  Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, more than 2,400 American 
troops have been killed and more than 20,000 injured. The insurgents 
and al Qaeda are using IEDs, which are roadside bombs, and suicide 
bombers. We, at this point, have not been able to defend our military 
as we should because of these tactics.
  I believe a change in strategy in Iraq is now necessary. By moving 
our troops to the perimeter, it will accomplish numerous things. Number 
one, it will allow the Iraqi military to be less dependent on the 
American military and our other coalition forces. It will send a 
message to the Iraqi people that now they have a new government that 
has been formed, it will give them the message that this is their 
country, this is their government, and this is also their Iraqi 
citizens providing their security.
  By moving to the perimeter, it will also allow us to change strategy, 
to show the Iraqi people and the American people and the world that 
there is a change in strategy, that we are moving ahead and that the 
Iraqi people and the Iraqi military will now have less dependence on 
us.
  In order for the Iraqi military to be able to provide the security 
necessary, we must cut the apron strings. By going to the perimeter, we 
will be able to do that.
  Now, how will we be able to do that? Number one, this is the 
beginning step to bringing our troops home. We will also continue to 
backup the Iraqi military when they need help. If they are being 
overrun, they can contact us. You can be anywhere, and many of us who 
have been to Iraq know, in a Black Hawk helicopter in Baghdad, as an 
example, within 10 to 15 minutes.
  We have the best special operations forces in the world. Our SEAL 
teams, our rangers, our marines, we have the best in the world. They 
have the ability to backup the Iraqi military when they are in need.

[[Page 11280]]

  But this will also allow our American forces to start using our 
technology, our air power, our abilities that have made us the 
strongest country in the world to backup the Iraqi military, but it 
will also, by doing this, going to the perimeter, it will allow us to 
be able to focus on high-value targets and let us again start bringing 
our men and women home.
  It will not be necessary anymore for our military to patrol the Iraqi 
urban areas and get blown up or injured by suicide bombers or roadside 
bombs because the Iraqi military will now be in those same streets.
  This is a very important plan. It is something we should consider 
very strongly.
  Now, it is important that we get our information from our military to 
make sure that we move forward with this type of plan. I was in Iraq 
about 2 months ago, and I talked to four of the generals who are really 
in charge of running everyday operations in Iraq, starting with General 
Casey, and I asked them, is the Iraqi military ready to start taking on 
the responsibility of patrolling the urban areas. Their comments to me 
2 months ago was that they feel that they are getting close, that they 
are not ready yet.
  When I just came back a week ago, when I went to Iraq with the 
Speaker, I asked the same generals, how are we doing now, is the Iraqi 
military, who we have trained for two-and-a-half years, is the Iraqi 
military ready to take on responsibility of patrolling the urban areas. 
They said to me, basically, they feel that the Iraqi military could 
take on responsibility of patrolling at least 70 percent of the urban 
areas. If this is the case, then it is extremely important and urgent 
almost that we let the Iraqi military start doing the job, and we will 
then back them up.
  Now, after I came back from Iraq, we were asked by President Bush to 
come and to brief him about the issues and what our observations were. 
I explained to the President a month-and-a-half ago about my strategy 
of moving to the perimeter. He said he would consider that.
  When I brought up the issue this time about a week ago, his comment 
was it could be a good idea but he has to rely on his military, on the 
strategy of his military commanders, and I understand that. And I told 
him that my conversation with the military commanders in the presence 
of other Members of Congress was basically they felt they could start 
the process of letting the Iraqi military starting to patrol the 
streets, starting to implement this perimeter plan, which will, again, 
allow the Iraqi military to start providing the security in their 
country. It will allow us to start bringing troops home, because if we 
go to the perimeter, we will not need all of the men and women, our 
military, to patrol the urban areas. Yet, we will still be there in the 
perimeter, it would be the green zone, to backup the Iraqi military 
when in need.
  I think this strategy should be considered. I hope it will be 
considered, and by considering this strategy, it will change our 
mission. It will be a new strategy. It will say to the American people, 
it is not the same old-same old, and we know that the American people 
are getting pretty frustrated when they see in the media every day that 
men and women are being injured, our men and women are being injured or 
being killed.
  This will then allow us to fight the war on our terms, using our air 
power, our intelligence to be able to go after the high-value targets 
like Zarqawi and also to fight the war on terror, because we are in a 
war against terror, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but throughout the 
world, and we must focus and use our specialty and our expertise to 
fight this war on terror.
  Remember, our ultimate goal is to turn this government over to the 
Iraqi people. Let them start creating job. Let us help them create 
jobs. Let us start helping them deal with the issue of infrastructure. 
If you do not have a job, you are not going to have a community, and we 
have to show to the Iraqi people that their quality of life is better 
under a democracy than it was under Saddam Hussein, but in order to do 
this, they must have security. They must have jobs, and I think we can 
help them do this.
  Our ultimate goal is to bring our men and women in uniform home. This 
perimeter plan is the first step. I respect Congressman Murtha. I think 
Congressman Murtha put this issue on the table so that we in this 
country and in Congress could start debating the issue about what is 
the appropriate strategy. My only issue with respect to Congressman 
Murtha's issue about a time certain is that I do not believe that we 
should give any enemy a time certain on when we are going to leave Iraq 
or Afghanistan, but I do believe that this perimeter strategy is first 
step to bringing the troops home.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his 
great contribution to the debate, and his proposal is just one of the 
many ideas that could and should be considered by the House of 
Representatives.
  This is a deliberative body. The debate tomorrow will allow us to 
focus on only one proposal that was drafted in a secretive, partisan 
fashion that does not allow ideas like Mr. Ruppersberger's to be 
considered.

                              {time}  2115

  I think if you look at the debate, you will find that the folks who 
are most short-changed in it are probably our own troops.
  I mentioned earlier that the debate will not be worthy of them 
because the debate is occurring some 3 years late, after 2,500 of them 
have already been killed in service to our country and another 20,000 
wounded, many of them grievously. We should have focused on this 
earlier.
  I was not in Congress when the decision was made to go into this 
Iraqi conflict, although I was here for the vote on the earlier one, 
and I think it is important that we hear the voice of our troops and of 
our military commanders. In many ways, these are the voices that have 
not been heard because, in many cases, they have been drowned out by 
the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That civilian leadership, 
particularly the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, and the former 
Under Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, have systematically disregarded 
military advice.
  Not only did these two gentlemen consistently underestimate the 
threat, oftentimes, as General Schwarzkopf, the great commander of the 
first Iraqi war pointed out, they seem to be enjoying their jobs too 
much. War is serious business, and I think it is time that we hear or 
at least read the comments of several of our Nation's top generals 
right now and see their reaction to Mr. Rumsfeld.
  At the top of this poster you see Lieutenant General Greg Newbold say 
that ``What we are living now is the consequence of successive policy 
failures.'' Mr. Newbold was top Operations Officer of the Joint Staff, 
Commanding General of the 1st Marine Division, a recipient of the 
Legion of Merit, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals.
  Look at the comment from Major General Paul Eaton. ``Two-and-a-half 
more years of that leadership was too long for my Nation and too long 
for my army and for my family.'' General Eaton led the initial effort 
to create an Iraqi army. He was Commander of the Coalition Military 
Assistance Training Team, Commanding General of the Army Infantry 
School.
  Look at the comment from Lieutenant General John Riggs. ``They only 
need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. Well, that is 
not paying proper respect to the professionalism and the valor of our 
military. When you ignore military advice or use it for your own 
political purposes, it is betraying the military.''
  General Riggs was the Director, Objective Task Force, Commanding 
General of the 1st U.S. Army, and served six tours overseas.
  General Wesley Clark said, ``They pressed for open warfare before 
diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It was a strategic 
blunder.''
  Look at the comments from additional generals. Major General John 
Batiste. ``Rumsfeld and his team

[[Page 11281]]

turned what should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a 
prolonged challenge.'' He was the commander of the 1st Division in 
Iraq, the Chief Military Aid to Paul Wolfowitz and a Brigade Commander 
in Bosnia.
  Look at this comment from General Anthony Zinni. ``Rumsfeld has 
committed acts of gross negligence and incompetence.'' General Zinni is 
a former CENTCOM commander. That is the regional command there. One of 
the most experienced men in the region, and a man whose advice was 
systematically disregarded by this administration. General Zinni was 
the recipient of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and other 
distinguished awards, including the Distinguished Service Medal.
  I happened to visit General Swan-
nack when I was on my first visit to Iraq. He is the former Commander 
of the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq. We met in Ramadi, one of the 
tough towns in the Sunni Triangle. Listen to what General Swannack has 
to say. ``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.''
  That is a vote of no confidence from one of Secretary Rumsfeld's top 
commanders.
  Look at this comment from Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. ``If I 
was the President, I would have relieved him from duty 3 years ago.'' 
General Van Riper is the first President of the Marine Corps 
University, wounded in action in Vietnam, and a Silver Star recipient 
and other awards.
  You know, Secretary Rumsfeld makes no secret of the fact that he has 
offered to resign twice and the President has not accepted his 
resignation. Well, I am proud of Secretary Rumsfeld for having offered 
to resign, because certainly great blunders have been made. But he has 
been very reluctant to admit any of those publicly. Perhaps he admitted 
them to the President.
  It is important to realize that Secretary Rumsfeld knew early on in 
this conflict that he was not really prepared for the job. In a famous 
leaked October 2003 memo Secretary Rumsfeld himself said something 
along these lines, that ``He did not have the metrics to understand 
whether we were winning or losing the war against terrorism,'' but he 
did know that we were losing the cost-benefit equation; that the 
terrorists were effectively being able to use $80 IEDs to blow up $2 
million tanks and take the lives not only of Americans but of 
surrounding Iraqis.
  So this is an amazing moment. Here we are 3 years later. I have asked 
Secretary Rumsfeld periodically in hearings something along the lines 
of every 2 or 3 months, ``Mr. Secretary, in October of 2003, after the 
war had begun, you said you did not have the metrics to understand 
whether we were winning or losing the war on terrorism. Do you have 
those metrics today?'' Well, I haven't ever heard a good answer to that 
question.
  So I trust our military leaders. I trust our men and women in uniform 
at all ranks, because so often today in this conflict the folks who 
have the most combat experience are not the generals in the Pentagon, 
they are the colonels, the majors, the captains, the lieutenants, the 
sergeants, and the privates in the field.
  And with the advent of advanced military communications, in some 
cases the plain old Internet, there has been a lot of contact and 
communication between those officers and enlisted men to find out the 
best techniques, the best way to pacify a town, the best way to engage 
in nation-building and get the infrastructure up and going again, the 
best way to use commander emergency funds, to help employ Iraqis and 
get the water turned on, get the electricity working, and things like 
that. But it has been a surprisingly ad hoc effort.
  We are the greatest nation on earth. We are the greatest nation in 
the history of the world. And one of the primary reasons for that is 
the brilliance and the dedication of our troops. We have a fighting 
force like the world has never seen before. It is the most forceful 
group of warriors, the most humane group of warriors, and the most 
ethical group of warriors ever. And we should appreciate that. We 
should be grateful for that, because we would not be able to take a 
breath of freedom without their vigilance for our country.
  Too many of us forget that our men and women in uniform are posted in 
120 nations around the world every day and every night on lookout to 
protect our freedom. I repeat, 120 nations around the world. Most 
Americans, even with an atlas, could not even name those nations. Not 
only are our soldiers making a terrific sacrifice for us, their 
families are, their loved ones back home, and we should never, never 
let a day go by without praying for them and showing our deepest 
heartfelt appreciation for their sacrifice.
  I wish our leaders in the Pentagon would listen to them more, because 
our men and women in uniform on the front lines of freedom know more 
about the terrorist adversary than the folks in the Pentagon and know 
more about tactics and procedures for best dealing with the terrorists. 
And if as my friend Mr. Ruppersberger said, his proposal for perimeter 
defense makes sense to those military leaders, then I would hope our 
civilian leaders in the Pentagon would listen as well.
  We have had a lot of controversy because early on in the Iraq war 
many of our top military leaders said we needed far more troops to go 
in and work with the Iraqis in order to preserve security so that the 
nation could be rebuilt. General Shinseki, Eric Shinseki, was probably 
the leading proponent of that approach. In a Senate hearing he was 
asked how many troops it would take, and he said a couple hundred 
thousand. He was retired early for having told the truth, and no leader 
in the Pentagon attended his retirement ceremony; a clear snub in 
military culture.
  You didn't see General Shinseki's name on this chart because he has 
been too tight-lipped to really blast the folks who mistreated him in 
such a grievous fashion, and mistreated him for what? For having told 
the truth. For having admitted publicly that it would take a couple 
hundred thousand troops to do the job right.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot of Americans don't realize that not only do we 
have troops posted in 120 nations around the world right now, but our 
troops are under great stress. In military terms, they call it OPTEMPO. 
Our troops have the highest OPTEMPO now than our troops have had since 
World War II. That means greater stress than during Vietnam and greater 
stress than during Korea. Our troops are stretched pretty thin right 
now.
  Most Americans don't realize that just a short while ago in Iraq, 
when Tennessee's own 278th Guard unit was there in Iraq, in country, 
that half or more of the active duty troops in the country were in fact 
National Guardsmen, what some people view as weekend warriors. These 
men and women from back home, who are not full-time active-duty 
soldiers, were called up for tours of duty for 6 months, a year, or 
more to serve their country in the sandy desert, tough climate, of 
Iraq. They went willingly, without carping, to serve our Nation.
  I am from the Volunteer State, Mr. Speaker. We earned that reputation 
in many of our Nation's conflicts because when duty called, our men and 
women back home didn't have to be asked twice to serve. They took their 
rifle, their horse, whatever they had with them and volunteered for 
duty. That spirit survives today.
  It also survives in the independence of Specialist Wilson, who asked 
Secretary Rumsfeld that famous question in Iraq about why National 
Guardsmen had to go scrounging around in garbage dumps to find metal to 
attach to the Humvees in order to try to protect themselves driving 
down Iraqi highways. Secretary Rumsfeld, you will recall, was somewhat 
startled by that question. But Specialist Wilson, a Tennessee 
guardsman, got more reaction from Secretary Rumsfeld, got more response 
in terms of really armoring our Humvees and other vehicles in Iraq than 
the House Armed Services Committee was able to accomplish.
  So I am proud of Specialist Wilson's courage, not only in serving his 
country but in speaking truth to power. Secretary Rumsfeld clearly 
didn't like

[[Page 11282]]

to hear what he was saying, but it finally got our military industrial 
complex working a little harder to up-armor our Humvees, to provide the 
bullet-proofed vests, and other things that our troops lacked for so, 
so many months and years in the Iraqi conflict. Why? Because our 
civilian leadership persistently underestimated the threat.
  So all I would ask, Mr. Speaker, is that the upcoming debate 
tomorrow, the 10 hours, be conducted in a civil fashion, bearing in 
mind the relatively innocuous text that has been put before us; bearing 
in mind that the Republican leadership must feel insecure. Even though 
they command an absolute majority in this House, even though they 
command the Senate as well, and even though they control the White 
House, they must feel so insecure that they would not allow any 
amendment to this resolution.
  The context, Mr. Speaker, is that we face a heavily divided country 
on this issue. The House gave this war such a cursory debate when it 
was undertaken that most Americans were unprepared, as in fact the 
civilian leadership of the Pentagon was unprepared, for the length, the 
duration, the toughness, and the cost of the conflict.

                              {time}  2130

  Now there were many people in our government who knew better. 
Secretary Colin Powell was one, the four-star general who commanded our 
troops in the first Iraq war, but he was plainly not listened to.
  Many other experts in government, experts in nation-building, knew 
this would be a tough and long struggle. But the Vice President, Mr. 
Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and others insisted on, created several 
illusions: One, that we would be greeted as liberators, toasted, 
greeted with flowers, and that Iraqi oil revenues would somehow pay for 
the conflict.
  Well, that plainly did not happen. Now we are faced with a situation 
where we are indeed proud of the bravery and valor of our troops, but 
the administration is still unwilling to pay their bills. Until very 
recently, there was no money in the regular budget to pay for the war 
in Iraq. It was always an emergency supplemental. Everything was 
unexpected. Now, finally, the administration seems to be getting a 
little more realistic and they are at least willing to call it, as 
Secretary Rumsfeld said, the long hard slog or the long, long war.
  We can get through this. We have overcome all of our adversities in 
the past. We are the greatest Nation on Earth and the greatest Nation 
in the history of the world; but we owe that greatness in large measure 
to our troops, the men and women in uniform, and not too much to our 
civilian leadership in Washington. In many cases they have not acted in 
a way to honor our troops.
  One of the best ways to honor our troops is to listen to their good 
advice. In so many cases our military leaders asked for more troops and 
those troops were not supplied.
  Read the book ``Cobra II'' by General Bernard Trainor. He is another 
general whose name is not listed on this list but whose advice is very 
crucial and whose history of the Iraq war is a very timely reminder of 
what really happened, not only in the early months of the war but later 
on. It is a truly shocking book that all Americans should read so we 
never repeat these mistakes again. So that we go into future conflicts 
better aware of the dangers and better prepared, and so the American 
people are fully informed in advance so they are not shocked by things, 
for example, that General Colin Powell knew all along.
  Mr. Speaker, it is going to be an interesting debate tomorrow. Ten 
hours on a largely innocuous resolution. This will probably be used as 
part of the public relations initiative that we are seeing now. I found 
the President's trip to Iraq very interesting. I think he stayed a full 
5 hours. I hope he learned a lot, because it takes 15 hours to fly over 
there and 15 hours to fly back, and to stay only 5 hours is not a great 
learning opportunity.
  I hope, too, we will have fuller bipartisan communication. When the 
President first announced that he was going to speak to the new Iraqi 
Cabinet by teleconference from Camp David, I thought, that's good. 
Maybe he can speak to House and Senate leadership the same way, maybe 
even in person, because there are so few opportunities for that 
interaction, even though we work at different ends of the same street, 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Mr. Speaker, we will get through this conflict. We will bring our 
troops home safely. Nobody knows exactly when yet, but we must 
stabilize that tough region of the world. We must bring hope to so many 
people who have been oppressed, especially Muslim women and religious 
minorities and people who yearn for freedom. We can and will overcome.
  We welcome the good news that we have received recently. We want more 
good news. I think it will come, but there will be bad patches as well.
  As we face the debate tomorrow, I think it is important for all 
Americans to read the text first before they have a strong reaction to 
it one way or the other, so they can read and see whether the whereas 
and resolved clauses are offensive, or whether they find them as I do, 
largely praise for two central objectives that I think all Americans 
can agree with: praise for our troops and praise for the valor of the 
Iraqi people.
  We will prevail in this conflict, Mr. Speaker. It is not easy to mark 
out today a path to victory, but I trust our men and women in uniform. 
I trust our troops on the ground and our military experts, not our 
civilian experts, to get us through this because we have the finest 
fighting force in the history of the world and that will keep America 
strong.

                          ____________________