[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12658-12659]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me start by acknowledging my gratitude 
and respect for the Senator from Ohio for coming to the floor of the 
Senate at this late hour and telling these touching stories about these 
men and women who have served our Nation so well and have given their 
lives in service to our values and this great cause of making America 
safe. As of today, 2,524 of those stories could be told. That is the 
number of American service men and women who have died in Iraq as of 
today.
  It is a day of special significance in my State of Illinois. We have 
reached the number of 100, 100 brave men and women from the land of 
Lincoln who have given their lives in service to our country, 100 
Illinois families who have lost a loved one, a child, a parent, a 
spouse, a brother, a sister.
  Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of the Civil War, consumed with grief 
over all of the death, said of those who died that they gave ``the last 
full measure of devotion.'' It is a reminder to all of us that when we 
discuss policy in the Senate, it does not always have a direct impact 
on the lives of those we represent. But when we vote on foreign policy, 
on the issue of war, we are making decisions that cost lives. We should 
never forget that. That is why this is more than just another job or 
another profession. This is, indeed, an awesome responsibility.
  Last week we completed the debate on where we will go in Iraq. It was 
not conclusive. Two amendments were offered and neither were adopted. 
Basically, the Senate took no position, at least the majority of the 
Senate took no position as the debate came to a close. But it was 
interesting, the tone and tenor of that debate. How many times on the 
floor of the Senate did we hear from the other side of the aisle the 
phrase ``cut and run''? It was part of a recurring mantra. I don't know 
how genuine it was--I assume it was--or if it was generated by a focus 
group as just the right combination of words to criticize those who 
would suggest we need a different approach and a different plan in 
Iraq. But after all of the chest thumping and the ``bring them on'' 
rhetoric, the sad reality is that our debate ended and the war 
continues.
  But then something very interesting happened. After we had considered 
an amendment offered by Senator Carl Levin and Senator Jack Reed which 
suggested that we should start withdrawing troops this year, moving 
toward a timetable, a day when our troops would come home, after that 
amendment was defeated on basically a partisan rollcall--there might 
have been one Republican joining us, but basically it was a partisan 
rollcall--after that amendment had been criticized as a cut-and-run, 
retreat amendment, something interesting occurred: The top U.S. 
commander in Iraq, General Casey, announced shortly after the Levin-
Reed amendment was defeated that, in fact, we would redeploy as many as 
five to six U.S. combat brigades by the end of this next year and that 
he plans to begin drawing down forces in just a few weeks.
  General Casey is offering a plan that in many ways looks very similar 
to the Democratic proposals. Yet when we proposed initiating 
redeployment this year, the Republican majority accused us of cutting 
and running from our responsibilities in Iraq. General Casey's plan 
does not call for total withdrawal, neither did the Democratic 
alternatives. Senators Levin and Reed wanted to begin redeployment this 
year and continue without a specific time line for completion but 
clearly putting the burden on the Iraqis to defend themselves.
  I also supported the Kerry-Feingold amendment calling for 
redeployment of

[[Page 12659]]

the bulk of U.S. forces by July of next year, 12 months away. Some said 
12 months is too soon; 12 months is not enough time.
  What has happened in the last 12 months in Iraq? In the last 12 
months we have lost 762 soldiers. We have seen more than 2,000 come 
home with serious injuries. We have spent nearly $90 billion. It isn't 
just 12 months on the calendar. It is 12 months of living and dying and 
being injured and asking the American people to continue to sacrifice 
for that war effort. So 12 months is an important and significant 
period of time.
  The amendment by Senators Kerry and Feingold called for the continued 
presence of forces, if needed, beyond July of 2007, for training, 
counterterrorism, and to protect U.S. personnel, along with a 
substantial U.S. military presence still in the region. They also 
suggested we consult with the Iraqi Government about the future of our 
troops.
  It is interesting that these amendments and General Casey's plan 
share several themes. First, we need a timeline for redeploying U.S. 
forces.
  Second, redeployment does not mean total withdrawal.
  Third, the shared objective of all plans is accelerating and 
expanding the handover of leadership to the Iraqis themselves.
  So many people criticized the Democrats at the end of last week that 
we didn't take a position. It turns out the position we took in both 
amendments was consistent by and large with the proposal of General 
Casey.
  I believe this is less about setting deadlines than about 
establishing timelines. We need to move toward a trajectory, a course 
of successfully handing over the security of Iraq to the people of 
Iraq. We have given them so much.
  This is the fourth year of this war. By the end of this calendar 
year, it will have lasted longer than the Korean war and, a few months 
beyond that, longer than World War II. We have given a lot: Over $300 
billion; over 2,500 American lives; 18,000 seriously injured soldiers; 
2,000 returning with head injuries that they will have to cope with for 
the rest of their lives. This is the reality of war, and this is the 
contribution given by the American people to the nation of Iraq to give 
them a chance to depose a dictator, to allow free elections, to allow 
them to debate and create a new government.
  But in the end, we can't do it all, and we shouldn't do it all. There 
has to be a will within the Iraqi people to stand up and defend 
themselves. They have to understand that if their nation is worth 
having, it is worth fighting for. They have to resolve their internal 
difficulties, and they have to stand together to fight off any 
potential enemies who would invade them in the future. That is the 
reality of real governance and real responsibility. That is why many of 
us believe that this debate ended last week without a conclusion. The 
message was not sent to the Iraqi people to accept the responsibility 
for their fate. But General Casey's proposal at least moves in that 
direction. I am glad those of us who voted last week for both the 
Kerry-Feingold amendment and the Levin-Reed amendment are in concert 
with General Casey in the belief that this must come to an end and 
soon.
  Then over the weekend something extraordinary happened. New Iraqi 
Prime Minister al-Maliki proposed a plan to try and unite Iraq's ethnic 
and sectarian factions. He knows the violence has taken a terrible 
toll. Last week the Los Angeles Times released a study that said more 
than 50,000 innocent Iraqis have died a violent death in the last 3 
years. The article suggested that maybe there were many more.
  The statistics came from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health 
Ministry, and other sources. But for a variety of reasons, the death 
toll is probably undercounted. Iraqis have died in uniform, killed by 
insurgents. Others have died waiting in line at a market. Still more 
have died along roadsides and in terrible, desperate places in the dark 
of night where they have been taken in by militias and murdered. The 
majority of bodies at the morgue are those of civilians, and the vast 
majority have been shot gangland-execution style. Many have been 
savagely tortured.
  In many cases, the cities of Iraq have been the battleground in 
struggles between the U.S. and Iraqi Government forces against the 
insurgents and foreign terrorists and among Iraqis themselves. 
Civilians have been caught in the crossfire, innocent people whose 
lives are in danger and extinguished in the crossfire of this 
insurgency.
  Recently a group of my constituents came to visit me. They knew of 
people living in Ramadi, and they know there is an effort under way to 
try to calm that area and to remove the insurgency. The people who came 
to see me in Springfield, IL are very concerned about the plight of 
innocent people who were stuck in the middle of this crossfire. Ramadi 
is the largest predominantly Sunni city in Iraq. It is the capital of 
Anbar Province, one corner of the Sunni Triangle. Over 900 American 
service men and women have been killed in that province. A corporal 
with the First Armored Division was killed there on Monday.
  Anbar has seen far too many deaths. U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving 
neighborhood by neighborhood trying to take control of the city. Many 
civilians have fled but an unknown number remain.
  Newspaper accounts describe ``a post-apocalyptic world: row after row 
of buildings shot up, boarded up, caved in, tumbled down.'' Our 
generals have repeatedly stated that there will not be another frontal 
Fallujah-style assault of Ramadi. Our forces have encircled the city 
and are trying to retake it one neighborhood at a time. The goal is for 
Iraqi forces to remain in the city, to allow it to return to some kind 
of normal economic life, and to keep the insurgents from simply 
retaking the neighborhoods.
  Those are worthy goals, and it is critical to their success that the 
civilians of Ramadi feel that they can stay and be safe in their city. 
Ultimately, it is the Iraqi people and their leaders, their armed 
forces and police, who will have to end this cycle of violence.
  Prime Minister al-Maliki is trying to find a way out. In looking at 
the terrible waves of death in Iraq, though, it is the deaths of over 
2,500 American service men and women that touch my heart.
  As the Prime Minister searches for a way to end the insurgency, we 
have to make it clear that his plans for reconciliation cannot rest on 
the foundation of amnesty for those who killed our brave soldiers.
  In his plan, the Prime Minister stated there might be amnesty for 
insurgents ``not proved to be involved in crimes, terrorist activities, 
and war crimes against humanity.''
  Now, the President has to make it clear to the Iraqi Government that 
they cannot erase the killing of Americans as they try to sketch out 
this reconciliation plan.
  I asked on a weekend show--when I was on one of the Sunday morning 
shows--what would you think of a plan that said if you killed an 
American soldier, you could be given amnesty? It would trouble me 
greatly, when I think of those soldiers of ours who have died for the 
people of Iraq. It would trouble me as much, if not more, if I had a 
son or daughter in uniform over there, realizing that they basically 
announced that it is excusable to shoot and kill an American soldier. 
We cannot allow that to happen.
  The Iraqi Government faces a difficult road ahead. We have to 
continue to help them. We need to also step up the effort to make the 
Iraqis responsible for their own future. Some have said we must stay 
and finish the job, but the simple fact is it is not our job to finish. 
It is for the Iraqis to finish the job.
  The Senate overwhelmingly called for 2006 to be a year of transition 
in Iraq. That transition must be to Iraqi leadership and 
responsibility. That is how we can truly announce that our mission is 
accomplished.

                          ____________________