[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 422-425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       IMPACT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning and in the days leading up to 
today, we have seen and heard a great deal of discussion, particularly 
by the media, describing the issue of the President's speech tomorrow 
evening and all of the discussion in the political system as a 
political tug of war about Iraq. It is not that. This is not a 
political tug of war. It is a serious moment for this country to try to 
evaluate what to do about something that overlays almost everything 
else we are considering these days; that is, the current war in Iraq. 
What do we do about what is happening there? It is about the lives of 
our soldiers. It is about our country's future. It is about how to make 
change in Iraq, how to create the kind of change that will give us the 
opportunity to do the right thing.
  I intend to listen carefully to what the President says in his speech 
to the nation tomorrow night. I am not going to prejudge what he says, 
but let me suggest what I think the President has to answer for us, for 
me, for the American people.
  There is considerable discussion about the fact that the President 
will likely call for a surge or an increase in American troops going to 
Iraq. There is also discussion that perhaps he will call for additional 
funds that would be sent to Iraq for reconstruction or other things 
Americans would contribute.
  One point the President will have to explain is the testimony that 
was given less than 2 months ago before the Senate by General Abizaid, 
the top military commander in Iraq. I am talking about the top military 
commander of American troops in Iraq. Here is what General Abizaid said 
in November, less than 2 months ago. He said:

       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 now, does that add considerably to 
     our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said 
     no. The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It 
     is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I 
     believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future.

  This is testimony before a congressional committee of the top U.S. 
military commander in Iraq saying he has asked all of his top 
commanders, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it 
add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq. He said:

       They all said no.

  That is something I believe has to be reconciled. Has that changed? 
Has something changed in 2 months?
  With respect to the amount of money that is sent to the country of 
Iraq, I observe this: This country has spent hundreds of billions of 
dollars on the Iraq

[[Page 423]]

war. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we are now approaching $400 billion. 
We appropriated separately roughly a $20 billion pot of money for 
reconstruction in Iraq. That is in addition to the reconstruction which 
has been done by American soldiers. That $20-plus billion was pushed 
out the door--a massive amount of money--in a short time.
  I held a good number of hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy 
Committee on that issue: contracting in Iraq. I think it is the most 
significant amount of waste, fraud, and abuse this country has ever 
seen. Let me show one poster that describes a part of it, which was 
shown at our hearing and we discussed this:

       A $243 million program led by the United States Army Corps 
     of Engineers to build 150 health care clinics in Iraq has, in 
     some cases, produced little more than empty shells of 
     crumbling concrete and shattered bricks cemented together 
     into uneven walls.

  A company called the Parsons Corporation got this money. They were to 
rehabilitate, I believe, 142 health clinics in the country of Iraq. 
Twenty were done, and the rest didn't happen at all. The money was 
spent. All the money is gone. The American taxpayers found that all 
their money was gone, but the fact is that the health clinics were not 
rehabilitated.
  There was a doctor, a physician from Iraq, who testified. He said: I 
went to the Health Minister of the new Government of Iraq. I said: I 
want to see these health clinics that were supposed to have been 
rehabilitated for which some $200 million was appropriated by the U.S. 
taxpayers, by the U.S. Government. I want to see these health clinics.
  He said the Health Minister of the new Government of Iraq said: You 
don't understand, they don't exist. They are imaginary clinics.
  Well, our money is gone. This is an example of the waste, fraud, and 
abuse in contracting.
  The Halliburton corporation, Custer Battles corporation--it is 
unbelievable--the stories. This photo shows some American officials 
with $100 bills wrapped in Saran Wrap the size of a big brick. This 
fellow testified at a hearing I held, this man in the white shirt. He 
said: Look, we told contractors in Iraq: Bring a bag, we pay cash. He 
said it was like the Wild West: Bring a sack, we pay cash.
  This $2 million in $100 dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap actually 
went to Custer Battles corporation. Custer Battles corporation got over 
$100 million in contracts. Among other things, it is alleged they took 
forklift trucks from the Baghdad Airport, took them over to a 
warehouse, repainted them, and then sold them to the Coalition 
Provisional Authority, which was us. It is a criminal action at this 
point.
  My point is this: Whatever we do in Iraq, I want to be effective. We 
owe it to the troops, we owe it to the men and women who wear America's 
uniform.
  At this point, we have America's troops in the middle of a civil war. 
Yes, most of this is sectarian violence. We see the reports. January 7: 
30 dead in Baghdad, bodies hang from lampposts. The Government said 
Saturday that 72 bodies were recovered around the city, most showing 
signs of torture. We see these day after day after day. Our heart 
breaks for the innocent victims of this war. The question for us now 
is, Should American troops be in the middle of that civil war? Should 
we send additional troops to that circumstance? If so, for what 
purpose? And if so, why do we do it less than 2 months after General 
Abizaid said the commanders do not believe additional troops will be 
effective?
  We have done what is called a surge in Baghdad starting last July. I 
believe it was somewhere around 15,000 additional troops were sent to 
Baghdad. The fact is, the violence increased, more soldiers died.
  I am going to listen to President Bush's speech. This ought not and I 
hope will not and should not be political. It is about all of us, 
Republicans and Democrats, the President and the Congress working 
together to find a way for the right solution for this country to 
support our soldiers, make the right judgments for them, make the right 
judgments for our country's long-term interests.
  Yes, we have a fight against terrorism that we must wage, and we must 
do it aggressively, but most of what is going on in Iraq at this point 
is sectarian violence, and it is, in fact, a civil war. The question 
is, What do we do now?
  It seems to me that if we are going to keep American troops in Iraq 
for any length of time, we ought to consider partitioning so at least 
we separate the combatants and the sectarian violence. It only seems to 
me, in a civil war, that works. But I will listen intently tomorrow 
with my colleagues to hear what the President's new plan is. I hope we 
can work together in a way that begins to do what is in the best 
interest of this country. I am very skeptical about this issue of 
deciding that we are going to surge additional troops into Iraq, even 
as the top military commanders in Iraq say that should not be done.
  I mentioned Iraq first because it overwhelms most of the other agenda 
here, but there are so many other issues with which we must deal. Let's 
deal with Iraq and get that right, support our troops, do what is 
necessary, do what is best for our country. Let's work together, 
Republicans and Democrats, let's work together, the President and the 
Congress, and find the right solution and do what is right for our 
future. Then let's turn to other issues.
  How about energy? It is interesting, we are held hostage by foreign 
oil. Over 60 percent of the oil that runs the American economy comes 
from off our shores. When we talk about energy independence, we need 
energy independence, and I support fossil fuels. We are going to use 
oil, coal, and natural gas. We always have and we always will, and I 
support that. But let me say this: In 1916, this Congress put in place 
tax incentives for the production of oil, long-term, robust, permanent 
tax incentives to incentivize the additional production of oil.
  Think how different it is with what we have done with renewable 
energy. We decided about 20 years ago to give some tax incentives to 
incentivize renewable energy development, but they were temporary, 
short term. The production tax credit for the production of wind and 
other renewable energy has been extended five times because it has been 
short term. It has been allowed to expire three times. That is not a 
commitment to this country. This is not a commitment to renewable 
energy. This is not a commitment to energy independence. The fact is, 
we are just babystepping our away along in all these areas. We didn't 
do that with oil. We made a robust, long-term commitment in 1916, and 
it remains today, that said: Let's produce. How about doing the same 
thing for renewable energy? Yes, the biofuels, but also wind energy and 
hydrogen fuel cells and all the other ways that can make us more secure 
from an energy standpoint. Let's stop babystepping. Let's have a 10-
year plan. We cannot do this with a 1-year plan or a 2-year plan. We 
need to deal with that issue.
  We need to deal with the issue of health care costs. I wanted to, but 
I don't have the time this morning, to respond to my colleague from 
Iowa who twice has come to the floor to talk about why our Government 
shouldn't be allowed to negotiate drug prices in the Medicare Program. 
It is preposterous that we have a provision in law that prevents the 
Federal Government from negotiating lower drug prices, especially 
because our consumers in this country pay the highest prices for 
prescription drugs in the world, and that is unfair. I relish that 
debate, and I wait for that debate.
  Jobs and trade--the fact is, we have lots of issues we need to sink 
our teeth into. I am going to come back and speak about many of these 
issues at great length. First, we have to deal with this situation in 
Iraq. That is very important. That is about the lives of men and women 
who wear America's uniform. But it is more than that as well. It is 
about what we are doing around the world. It is about, yes, our lives 
and our treasure, and we need to get that right.
  I mentioned when I started that I think the press, if one listens to 
all the

[[Page 424]]

 programs, tend to portray this as a political tug of war. It is deadly 
serious, much more serious than a political tug of war. It is about 
trying to get this right for our country's future.
  I hope that in the coming several weeks, we can come to a conclusion 
about this very important issue--yes, the war in Iraq, the larger war 
on terrorism, deal with some of these issues, such as homeland 
security--and then move on to begin to address the issues I just talked 
about as well; that is, the issue of energy security, health care 
costs, jobs, trade, and a series of issues that are important for this 
country's future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
given 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this morning I rise to discuss the 
terrible situation we see in Iraq. While home in New Jersey over these 
last few days, I was often approached by constituents on the street and 
there was one topic that would come into the conversation almost 
immediately, when people said: Senator, when are we going to get our 
troops out of the crossfire in Iraq?
  It is a great question, but the answer is certainly not clear.
  Our constituents back home understand that President Bush has totally 
mishandled the diplomatic and strategic parts of the Iraq mission and 
our troops are the ones who are caught in the middle--caught in the 
middle of an ethnic civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. From my home 
State of New Jersey, we have already lost 74 people in Iraq; nationwide 
the total is quite clear--over 3,000 have lost their lives, and there 
are over 23,000 wounded with injuries that could disable them for the 
rest of their lives.
  To make matters worse, a disproportionate amount of the burden of 
this conflict has fallen to Guard and Reserve troops. In fact, in early 
2005, the National Guard and the Reserves made up nearly half of the 
fighting force in Iraq, people who were to be called up when 
emergencies arose. The Reserves were not there primarily to be a 
replacement for long-term combat duty. This administration decided 
early on that their agenda for the military was to shrink the size of 
our Active Forces. We all heard that. ``We will get it down to being 
lean and mean, and increase reliance on contractors for support.'' If 
it were not so tragic, it would be a joke.
  Now we see, in practice, the Bush long-term military plan has been a 
disaster. We do not have enough active troops. We are relying way too 
much on the Guard and Reserve. And contractors such as Halliburton have 
been wasting taxpayer dollars right and left.
  The proof of this waste was a fine, levied against Halliburton, of 
$60 million at one time for overcharges for the care and feeding of our 
troops. We continue to hear of irresponsible behavior of contractors 
serving our needs in Iraq. Mismanagement of all forms has been a 
hallmark of Defense Department supervision.
  At every turn, this President has made terrible judgments. Tomorrow 
we are going to hear another decision by President Bush. Why should the 
American people trust him to understand what he is getting us into? We 
heard the President say, ``Bring 'em on,'' one of the most disingenuous 
statements ever made by a President. I served in Europe during World 
War II, and I can tell you that we never wanted to hear a Commander in 
Chief taunting the enemy from the comforts of the White House. Asking 
more of the enemy to show their faces? We didn't want to see them at 
all.
  We saw the President's foolish display of bravado on the Aircraft 
Carrier Abraham Lincoln when he declared, ``Mission accomplished.'' 
What a careless statement the President of the United States made that 
day, over 3\1/2\ years ago. Mission accomplished? That meant the job 
was finished, as far as most people were concerned. But it was not 
through.
  While the President was performing in 2003, leaders were warning of a 
military crisis. General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, told a Senate 
Armed Services Committee that we would need to keep a large force in 
Iraq even after a war to curb ethnic tensions and provide humanitarian 
aid. General Shinseki, distinguished military leader, said we needed 
several hundred thousand troops there. His assessment was harshly 
dismissed quickly by the President and by Secretary Rumsfeld. The 
General's reality-based opinion got in the way of their ideologically 
based mission of a smaller Active-Duty Force.
  In the aftermath of the initial invasion, President Bush has made the 
wrong move almost every time. Now we have walked so deep into the swamp 
in Iraq that just adding more guns is not going to work. This so-called 
surge is another bad idea--slogans, such as ``cut and run'' have to be 
matched against the reality of ``stay and die.''
  President Bush likes to say: I do what the generals tell me to. But 
now we know that is not the case. The generals have been extremely 
candid about their view of the surge idea. They think it is wrong. Now 
we are hearing that the President intends to give another $1 billion to 
Iraqi reconstruction projects. We want to fund every cent that our 
troops need for their safety, for their return, for their health care, 
for their well-being, but sending more money down the rat hole is not 
going to do it. It is being diverted from programs at home, such as 
education, stem cell research, health care for all our people, to name 
a few, and the taxpayers of New Jersey do not want their money used to 
build another civilian project in Iraq that is going to get blown up 
the next day. Before we look to spend more money on civil projects in 
Iraq, let's get the diplomatic situation straightened out.
  The American people want to see us leave Iraq with some hope for 
stability in our absence. That will require President Bush to use all 
of the diplomatic tools at his disposal to force a dramatic change of 
course for the Iraqi Government. The current Government in Iraq has to 
take real steps to disarm the Shiite militias and show the Sunnis that 
they will actually be empowered in the Iraqi Government. If we do not 
do that, we could send a million troops to Iraq tomorrow, but it would 
not make a difference. If the Sunnis feel the Iraqi Government has 
nothing to offer and Prime Minister al-Maliki doesn't stop the Shiite 
militias, the bloodbath will continue.
  I hope the leaks about the President's plan are wrong and that he 
will announce tomorrow a better course, a course that will allow us to 
exit Iraq but with real hope of a more stable society left behind.
  I conclude that with the history of planning for this war and the 
statements coming from the White House and the leadership of the 
Defense Department I ask: How can we trust their judgment with a new 
plan to put more people in harm's way without some idea of when this 
will end? It is not a good idea and we ought to get a better 
explanation from the President and the Defense Department as to what 
might the outcome be if their plan succeeds.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the 
word ``surge''--s-u-r-g-e--as ``a sudden large temporary increase.'' 
Note in particular the word ``temporary.'' President Bush's rumored new 
strategy on Iraq--a surge of U.S. troops intended to quell the violence 
in Baghdad--is both wrongheaded and headed for failure.
  As outlined, the surge envisions clearing all violent factions out of 
Baghdad in an effort which is to be led by Iraqi security forces. 
Apparently, U.S. forces will provide indiscriminate firepower in 
another attempt to establish democracy by brute force. This does not 
seem to me to be the way to win hearts and minds in Iraq.
  I oppose any surge in Iraq. Only days ago, just days ago, we passed 
the grim milestone of 3,000 American dead in Iraq. There are few firm 
numbers on Iraqi lives lost, but estimates are in the tens of 
thousands. I am reminded of

[[Page 425]]

one definition of ``insanity'': making the same mistake over and over 
while continuing to expect a different result. We have surged before. 
Still the violence in Iraq worsens.
  We are close to the beginning of the fifth year--the fifth year--of a 
war which should never have been started by an administration that fed 
the Congress and the public false information. This is an 
administration which has learned nothing--nothing, zilch--nothing more 
about the country of Iraq than it knew before it launched an unprovoked 
U.S. attack.
  Our stated purpose for continuing to occupy Iraq is to help the Iraqi 
people build a stable democracy. But the difficulty of that task should 
have been clear before we invaded. It was clear to me. Iraq is a 
country that was only held together by a brutal strongman, Saddam 
Hussein. And without the strongman to force cohesion, it is a country 
with deep ethnic and religious divisions and no central loyalties. 
There is no tradition of constitutions or equal rights, no unifying 
common beliefs about individual freedoms or governing with the consent 
of the governed--none of that commonality of thought that reinforces 
governing principles in the society at large.
  The al-Maliki Government would never survive on its own outside the 
Green Zone in Baghdad, and indeed the point of a surge is to secure 
only the capital. But what then? After accelerating the violence, even 
if we are able to lock down Baghdad, what will transpire to keep the 
insurgency from regrouping elsewhere, possibly fed by Iran or by Syria? 
How will we then establish the legitimacy of a shaky Iraqi Government?
  In my view, we may be about to make a critical mistake by moving in 
exactly the wrong direction in Iraq. Instead of a surge, we ought to be 
looking at a way to begin orderly troop reduction. The folly of the 
surge idea is apparent. The insurrection in Iraq is a civil war. The 
conflict is among warring factions battling for some measure of control 
over the others. U.S. involvement on one side simply further energizes 
all the other sides. This surge will only energize them, further 
provoking a likely countersurge of violence. If it is a true surge--in 
other words, temporary--the insurrection factions will only work harder 
to maim and kill our troops and claim victory if we reduce forces. So, 
in fact, there will probably be no surge but, rather, a permanent 
escalation of the U.S. presence, which is simply being sold to the 
American public as a surge. Once again, we get obfuscation and spin 
from a White House that seems incapable of careful thought and 
analysis.
  Any plan to increase troops in President Bush's new strategy is 
simply a plan to intensify violence, put more American troops in harm's 
way, risk the lives of more innocent Iraqis, engender more hatred of 
U.S. forces, and embroil U.S. forces deeper in a civil war.
  I would like to see a clear defining--a clear defining--of our 
immediate challenges in Iraq; a realistic discussion about short-term 
achievable goals; an admission that we cannot remain in Iraq for much 
longer because the American public will not tolerate it; and benchmarks 
for beginning an orderly withdrawal conditioned on actions by the Iraqi 
Government.
  So, Mr. President, the al-Maliki Government has been duly elected by 
the people of Iraq. It is time we let them take charge. Let them, Mr. 
President. Let them take charge. As long as we prop them up and inflame 
hatred, they will never have the legitimacy they need to make the 
political decisions that may ultimately save Iraq. In short, it is time 
to take the training wheels off the bike. Do you know what that means? 
It is time to take the training wheels off the bike.
  Our blundering--and it is nothing less--our blundering has inflamed 
and destabilized a critical region of the world, and yet we continue to 
single-mindedly pursue the half-baked goal of forcing democracy on a 
country which is now embroiled in a civil war. Our blinders keep us 
from seeing the regional problems which are bubbling and which soon may 
boil. The real damage to the United States is not only the loss of life 
and the billions of dollars expended, it is also the diminution of our 
credibility around the world as a country with the will and the vision 
to lead effectively.
  Serious diplomacy is clearly in order on the matters of Lebanon, the 
Israel-Palestinian conflict, and on Iran. Multinational talks were part 
of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, but diplomacy usually ends 
up at the bottom of the administration's option list, and that is where 
it has landed again.
  If the ``shoot first'' crowd in the White House continues to stick 
its chin out and believe that bullets and bombast will carry the day, 
soon--very soon--our ability to mediate the morass of difficulties in 
the Mideast and elsewhere may be permanently damaged. Pariahs do not 
usually carry much weight at negotiating tables. If the lesson in Iraq 
teaches anything, it is that military might has very great limitations. 
But then that is a lesson we should have learned many years ago from 
Vietnam--many years ago from Vietnam.

                          ____________________