[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 393-394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    IRAQ STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on the basis of the very kind 
comments of the Senator from Illinois and others, very reasoned 
comments, many of these comments having been stimulated by the Iraq 
Study Group, which Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton both made their first 
presentation to the Congress, to our Senate Armed Services Committee, 
back in early December, there is a lot of wisdom in this. The members 
of this study commission are some of the finest public servants to have 
been produced in this country and who obviously have the interest of 
this country at heart and who are struggling through this thicket of 
unclear occurrences in the Middle East and Central Asia. The goal is to 
figure a way in which there might be a chance at stabilizing Iraq 
politically and economically so that country has a chance to continue 
to exist with a democratically elected government. Yet, at this point, 
it is certainly not clear that stability is going to materialize. We 
certainly hope it does because of the consequences for America and for 
the rest of the free world if Iraq crumbles into chaos.
  Looming over that entire region is an ascendant Iran, an Iran that is 
penetrating its influence, not only through the Shiites in Iraq but 
through its efforts in other parts of the Middle East, through Syria, 
through Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian Territories and 
as a result, we see the increasing influence of Iran and their brand of 
Shiite Islam. This is much to the consternation of a majority of the 
Arab world, in particular the Sunni Arab world as well as Israel.
  In the 2 weeks preceding Christmas, I went on a visit to nine nations 
within a 12-day period, coming back just in time for Christmas. I was 
struck by the words I would hear from leaders in Israel where I first 
visited and the words I would hear by other Arab leaders, in some cases 
heads of state in Sunni Arab nations. Those words were almost identical 
in describing the real present and future threat posed by Iran. Of 
course, a lot of that concern was not only related to Iran obtaining a 
nuclear weapon but the immediate concern of Iraq spiraling into chaos, 
with no stability whatsoever, with the continued penetration by the 
Iranian Shiite influence.
  I first went to Israel, and then continued on, visiting with the 
heads of state and the governments, in Palestine, and then on to 
Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, on to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, which, by the way, 
General Hayden, the head of the CIA, requested I go and spend time with 
the Saudi King, to urge the Saudis to exert their influence with the 
Sunni tribes in Iraq working towards reconciliation. I went from Saudi 
Arabia to Bahrain and then into Iraq. I have come away with a number of 
conclusions.
  After visiting with the marines in western Iraq in Al Anbar Province, 
indeed a U.S. troop increase may well help us be better able to 
stabilize that part of Iraq. It is almost entirely Sunni, and the major 
threat there is al-Qaida, and of course the big military threat to us 
there is the IEDs, the improvised explosive devices.
  I, along with Senator Coleman of Minnesota, as we were in Iraq 
together--and he can certainly speak for himself, but I think we were 
persuaded by talking to the Marine commanders that an increase of some 
number of troops there would help them in what they are doing on a 
daily basis, which is trying to get the local Arab leaders to take over 
their own security. There is some degree of success in western Iraq but 
not in Baghdad. In Baghdad there is the sectarian violence that 
everyone has heard about.
  What we were shocked to hear was from prominent Sunni members of the 
Government in Iraq, in Baghdad. One prominent, high-level Iraqi 
Government official, a shia, said to us: Sectarian violence is not the 
problem. Those were almost his exact words. In his opinion, the problem 
was the Sunni extremists, the Baathists who want to retain power, just 
like they had it in the old days under Saddam Hussein, and the foreign 
fighters from al-Qaida. For that high-level official to sit there and 
look two U.S. Senators in the eyes and say that sectarian violence was 
not the problem is either a complete misreading of the circumstances, 
the reality on the ground, or else his mind is so enveloped in 
sectarian violence and the old hatreds of the Shiites against the 
Sunnis and vice versa, those hatreds that are so ingrained that he 
can't see beyond that sectarianism.
  So in a few days, we are going to receive the President's new plan. I 
look forward to seeing and hearing the details of it, but it is not a 
new plan because there is no plan now. We need some honest realism in 
the policy, not hardheaded ideology. This so-called

[[Page 394]]

new policy ought to be driven by realism. It is the situation on the 
ground in Baghdad that no surge is going to solve the problem. I think 
those who are leaking this report in advance of it coming out have it 
backwards. A surge to solve the sectarian violence is not going to 
work. We ought to have the sectarian violence subside because Iraqi 
Sunnis and Shiites decide that it is more in their interests to 
reconcile than it is to fight the old hatred fights. At the same time, 
it would be my recommendation, as the Iraq Study Group report has 
recommended, that we start moving more to a training mission from a 
combat mission. Only if the sectors decide they are going to reconcile, 
then we, the United States, can help them be better prepared in a 
training mission instead of a combat mission. It is my hope that the 
Saudis would utilize their extensive tribal Sunni contacts in order to 
urge those Sunnis in Iraq that the only way you are going to see a 
better end of the day is to have some reconciliation. And the Saudis 
told me that they are now starting to see this opportunity.
  There have been things that have come out in the last couple of weeks 
that I don't think bode too well for us. The one general who, time 
after time, came before our Senate Armed Services Committee and in whom 
I had a degree of trust in what he was saying was General Abizaid. Now 
General Abizaid is going to retire. He not only speaks the language, he 
has been involved in that region of the world for years, yet his advice 
is no longer going to be sought. That, to me, is a mistake.
  What is at stake is the entire region with the Iranian ascendancy. 
What is at stake is the more than 140,000 American troops who are there 
now and all of those who will be rotated there in the future. What is 
at stake in the Middle East and central Asia is a part of the world of 
enormous importance to the United States.
  It is hard to talk about this very difficult condition the United 
States is facing without also saying there is another policy we clearly 
ought to look at in order to make some changes to lessen our dependence 
on that part of the world in the future, and that is energy 
independence. If we did not have to import 60 percent of our daily 
consumption of oil from places such as the Persian Gulf region or 
Nigeria or Venezuela, wouldn't the defense outlook for the United 
States and the way we would approach our foreign policy in different 
parts of the world be considerably different and a lot easier for the 
United States?
  As we eagerly anticipate the President's comments and his report on 
his new policy, let's understand there is not a new policy. There has 
not been a policy in the past. The idea that this surge of troops is a 
new policy is not new. We tried that before a couple of years ago and 
it did not work. It did not work because of the longstanding violence 
and hatred between those two groups of Islam which goes back to the 
1600s, when the two brands of Islam started separating, and what 
ultimately came to be the Shiites separated from the Sunnis after the 
death of Mohammed. A separation, with the two sides wanting revenge is 
how this has played out over the years. It is still going on.
  We have enormous stakes. We hope we can get it right. It is with a 
great deal of anticipation that I look forward to the Senate receiving 
the President's comments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the death of President 
Gerald R. Ford are printed in today's Record under ``Morning 
Business.'')
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________