[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1440-1442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2--EXPRESSING THE BIPARTISAN RESOLUTION ON 
                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Snowe) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                             S. Con. Res. 2

       Whereas the United States strategy and presence on the 
     ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the 
     American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
       Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our 
     goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in 
     current strategy;
       Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, 
     influence, and interests of the United States in Iraq, the 
     Middle East, and around the world;
       Whereas more than 137,000 United States military personnel 
     are bravely and honorably serving in Iraq and deserve the 
     support of all Americans;
       Whereas more than 3,000 United States military personnel 
     have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 
     have been wounded in Iraq;
       Whereas on January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush 
     announced his plan to deepen the United States military 
     involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 
     additional United States combat forces to Iraq;
       Whereas Iraq is witnessing widening sectarian and intra-
     sectarian violence;
       Whereas Iraqis must reach a political settlement if there 
     is going to be a reconciliation in Iraq, and the failure of 
     the Iraqis to achieve such a settlement has led to the 
     increase in violence in Iraq;
       Whereas Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on 
     November 27, 2006, that ``[t]he crisis is political, and the 
     ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting 
     of innocents are the politicians.'';
       Whereas an open-ended commitment of United States forces in 
     Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making 
     the political compromises and providing the personnel and 
     resources that are needed for violence to end and for 
     stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
       Whereas the responsibility for internal security and 
     halting sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with 
     the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;
       Whereas there have been repeated promises by the Government 
     of Iraq to assume a greater share of security 
     responsibilities, disband militias, consider amendments to 
     the Iraq constitution, enact laws to reconcile sectarian 
     differences, and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi 
     people, but those promises have not been kept;
       Whereas a successful strategy in Iraq is dependent upon the 
     Iraqi leaders fulfilling their promises;
       Whereas the commander of the United States Central Command, 
     General John Abizaid, testified to Congress on November 15, 
     2006, that ``[i]t's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do 
     this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the 
     Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future'';
       Whereas the Iraq Study Group suggested a comprehensive 
     strategy to ``enable the United States to begin to move its 
     combat forces out of Iraq responsibly'' based on ``new and 
     enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the 
     region'';
       Whereas the United States Army and Marine Corps, including 
     their Reserves and the Army National Guard, their personnel, 
     and their families, are under enormous strain from multiple, 
     extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;
       Whereas the majority of nondeployed Army and Marine Corps 
     units are no longer combat ready due to a lack of equipment 
     and insufficient time to train; and
       Whereas the United States strategy in Iraq must not 
     compromise the ability of the United States to address other 
     vital national security priorities, in particular global 
     terror networks, proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction, regional stability in the Middle East, the 
     nuclear program of Iran, the nuclear weapons of North Korea, 
     and stability and security in Afghanistan: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is not in the national interest of the United States 
     to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by 
     escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq;
       (2) the primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq 
     should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the 
     political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;
       (3) greater concerted regional, and international support 
     would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and 
     national reconciliation;
       (4) main elements of the mission of United States forces in 
     Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial 
     integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, 
     reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, 
     and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;
       (5) the United States should transfer, under an 
     appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal 
     security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the 
     Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces; and
       (6) the United States should engage nations in the Middle 
     East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace 
     and reconciliation process for Iraq.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Hagel, Senator Levin, and I 
are submitting a bipartisan resolution that opposes the President's 
plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
  This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement 
in Iraq by escalating our troop presence.
  Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are 
for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq.
  That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each 
other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

[[Page 1441]]

  Last week, when Secretary of State Rice presented the President's 
plan to escalate our troop presence in Iraq to the Foreign Relations 
Committee, the reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged 
from profound skepticism to outright opposition.
  This resolution will give every Senator a chance to say where he or 
she stands on the President's plan.
  I believe that when a President goes way off course on something as 
important as Iraq, the single most effective way to get him to change 
course is to demonstrate that his policy has waning or no support--from 
both parties.
  The more we make Iraq a partisan issue, the more the President is 
likely to dig in. The more we show that Americans across the board 
don't want to go down the path of escalation, the better our chance to 
stop it.
  Iraq is not a partisan issue. It's a challenge we must meet as 
Americans.
  The very first sentence of our resolution says something the three of 
us believe profoundly: ``U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in 
Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and 
the bipartisan support of Congress.''
  This resolution will demonstrate that, right now, the support is not 
there for the President's policy in Iraq. The sooner he recognizes that 
reality and acts on it, the better off all of us will be.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, we have before us one of the most important 
issues that has ever faced our country, certainly in modern times. The 
future of Iraq will affect the United States, the Middle East, and the 
world for decades to come.
  No one in Congress and no one in the United States wants to see 
America humiliated, defeated, or in any way lose its purpose. The issue 
of Iraq involves all of us. The Congress of the United States must have 
a role to play.
  Our responsibility is to join together in a bipartisan effort to work 
to develop a consensus to deal with the great challenges of our time. I 
know of no challenge that is greater today, before this country, than 
Iraq. When a Nation commits its men and women to war, it is the 
greatest challenge that any of us will ever deal with in our time in 
the Congress.
  We owe it to the American people to help find a bipartisan consensus 
of purpose, to help develop a policy worthy of our men and women in 
uniform. The American people not only deserve but they expect a 
consensus. This resolution is not about trying to assign blame on the 
Administration. It is not about replaying past mistakes. This 
resolution is about moving forward. It is difficult but it is our 
responsibility.
  Some of us believe that the course that the President announced 
Wednesday was not the appropriate course. I do not believe that the 
United States should be sending more American troops into the middle of 
the tribal, sectarian civil war that is occurring in Iraq.
  Senators Biden, Levin, and I have focused personally on writing this 
resolution because we felt it must reflect a responsible, forward-
looking, and constructive approach. We must remain focused on a 
strategy which seeks to advance America's national interests and allow 
America to leave Iraq honorably.
  The American people look to its government for responsible policy. A 
policy that can be sustained. A policy that reflects a clear consensus 
of purpose regarding our objectives, our strategy and our policies. 
This is what our resolution seeks to achieve.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the primary objective of the bipartisan 
resolution my colleagues and I are introducing today is to convince a 
bipartisan majority of Senators to oppose deeper military involvement 
in Iraq by the United States and to get the Iraqis to reach a political 
settlement among themselves as the only way to end the violence in 
Iraq.
  The resolution would send a clear message that Congress does not 
support the plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq because 
it is based on the false premise that there is a military solution to 
the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a 
political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions.
  Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged recently that ``The 
crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation 
and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.''
  The resolution states that it is not in the national security 
interests of the United States to deepen our military involvement in 
Iraq by increasing the number of U.S. troops.
  The resolution calls for the transition of our military mission in 
Iraq to a more limited one of training, counterterrorism, and 
protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq. It also calls for greater 
engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  Last week the President said that he had made clear to Iraq's leaders 
that America's commitment is not open-ended. I welcome these words. But 
the reality behind the President's new rhetoric is that the open-ended 
commitment continues--more American military men and women would be 
sent into the chaos of Iraq's sectarian violence without condition or 
limitation.
  President Bush also indicated that the Iraqi government needs 
``breathing space'' to make political progress. The opposite is true. 
The Iraqi leaders don't need breathing space--they must feel real 
pressure to reach a political settlement. Increasing our military 
presence in Iraq takes more pressure off. The Iraq Study Group put it 
this way last month: ``An open-ended commitment of American forces 
would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take 
the political actions that give Iraq its best chance of quelling 
sectarian violence.''
  President Bush also said that the Iraqis have set benchmarks for 
themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi government in 
meeting some of its past benchmarks and promises: Iraqi President 
Talibani said in August 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over 
security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge has 
not been kept. Prime Minister Maliki said last June that he would 
disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national 
reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding 
the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept. The 
Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its 
recommendations for changes in the Constitution to the Council of 
Representatives within four months of the formation of the Government 
last May. The Commission has yet to formulate any recommendations. 
Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones 
to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of 
the Provincial Election Law, the Petroleum Law, a new De-Baathification 
Law, and the Militia Law. Not one of these laws has been enacted. The 
Iraqi army pledged six battalions in support of American and Coalition 
efforts during Operation Forward Together last summer. In fact, Iraqis 
provided only two battalions.
  This is not a track record that inspires confidence in Iraqi pledges 
and commitments.
  The President said that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to 
the benchmarks it has announced.'' How did the President say we are 
going to do that? What will the consequences be if the Iraqis continue 
to fail to meet these benchmarks, particularly since some of them have 
been established and missed in the past? The President said ``If the 
Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose 
the support of the American people . . . '' That is an empty threat 
given the fact that the Iraqi Government has already lost the support 
of the American people, and it hasn't affected their behavior. The 
President's most recent plan, like previous ones, includes no mechanism 
to hold the Iraqis to their commitments.
  Just two months ago General Abizaid testified before our Committee 
against increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. He told us: ``I 
met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps 
commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your 
professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops

[[Page 1442]]

now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in 
Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the 
Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us do this 
work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing 
more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''
  Deepening our involvement in Iraq would be a mistake. Deepening our 
involvement in Iraq on the assumption that the Iraqis will meet future 
benchmarks and commitments given their track record would compound the 
mistake.
  For America to supply more troops while the Iraqi leaders simply 
supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq. Telling the 
Iraqis that we will increase our troops to give them yet more breathing 
space will only postpone the day when Iraqis take their future into 
their own hands and decide whether they want to continue to fight a 
civil war or make peace among themselves.
  This resolution does not limit any future course of action that 
Congress may decide to take. What it would do is send a powerful 
message to the President and the Iraqis that Congress does not support 
an escalation of our military presence in Iraq.

                          ____________________