[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 805-806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




THE PRESIDENT'S TROOP SURGE IS TANTAMOUNT TO AN ESCALATION OF THE IRAQ 
              WAR AND WILL NOT MAKE AMERICA OR IRAQ SAFER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you for your 
leadership and presence during this important debate and discussion.
  I almost don't know where to start. Because when you begin to discuss 
the issue of Iraq, you must be very cautious.
  One, the constitutional premise is that the President is the 
Commander in Chief. The immediate inquiries of the press of how are you 
going to translate the vote of the American people into action, you are 
just the Congress; the Commander in Chief has every right to command 
the troops. And might I say that this President has commanded the 
troops. As I visited Afghanistan and Iraq, every one of those soldiers 
has stood up and said, I was willing to come and follow the orders of 
my Commander in Chief. I respect them, thank them, thank their 
families.
  That is why I feel a special obligation to begin to renew the energy 
and the outrage that many of us expressed during the debate of 2002 
when we had hoped that we would have secured enough votes to oppose the 
attack on Iraq.
  But I am not here to recapture past failures or successes. What I am 
here to say is that it is imperative, it is the demand that the 
American people have made. Not that we follow opinion polls. For if you 
look at the opinion polls, 57 percent of the American people are 
dissatisfied with the way Iraq has been handled. Larger numbers than 
that are not supporting the escalating of the war.
  So many might say, as I imagine the Commander in Chief will say 
tonight, I am not here to follow opinion polls. I do say that any 
elected person has a right to define their own anchor.
  But what we are here to do is do right by the American people. We are 
here to do right by the 22,000 maimed soldiers who have returned who 
are in the Nation's hospitals, who we have not seen, with amputated 
arms and legs, those that I have seen in MASH units with imploded 
brains because of the IEDs. We are here to do right by the 3,000 plus 
who have died and the families who are mourning their loss. We are here 
to do right by the soldiers who have said, send me.
  I believe that the plan that the President will offer tonight is a 
misdirected plan. It is a wrong plan. And let me tell you why. Upping 
or plussing or surging the troops should have happened 3 years ago. 
This is a war that has lasted longer than World War II. The idea of 
more troops without a mission is not effective.
  Listen to the generals who have testified before our committees. 
Listen to the generals who have now been given early retirement, who 
did not agree with the plussing up. Why is it that the President has 
often said, I will listen to my generals, and all of a sudden these 
generals have been deposed?
  And then, of course, the question is a realistic question. Twenty 
thousand troops for the city of Baghdad, now captured by the civil war? 
Not 20,000 troops to help us in Mosul or Tikrit, but 20,000 troops to 
go to Baghdad, a city like Mexico City, or a city that is like another, 
a huge teeming city, 25 million plus. And our soldiers will now be the 
police officers knocking on doors looking to drag people out of their 
houses. That is not a military operation.
  And then, of course, let me say to you that we did an operation 
upsurge or plus from June to October 2006. The purpose was to secure 
Baghdad. But as the Baker Commission has indicated, and I hope the 
President has read, this is a sectarian civil war. There is a need for 
diplomacy instead of or in front of a military action.
  I passed an amendment that said that the redeployment or the number 
of times that you have been redeployed should be taken into 
consideration before you are being called up. None of that will occur.
  We don't have 20,000 troops; and our soldiers have been over two 
times, three times, four times, more than any occurrence in Vietnam. In 
order to get the 20,000, we must redeploy soldiers who have been on the 
battlefield, who are battle worn, not individuals who refuse to serve 
their country but are battle worn and battle torn.
  What are we for? I am for the rebuilding of the military. I am for 
the replenishing of our equipment. I want us to be strong on defense. 
But I am not for an escalating war that has no mission and no end.
  We must have political diplomacy. We must not send our soldiers. We 
must have a new direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak on the most critical 
issue facing our country, the war in Iraq. This misguided, mismanaged, 
and costly debacle was preemptively launched by President Bush in March 
2003 despite the opposition of me and 125 other Members of the House. 
To date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement 
in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history.
  The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the 
United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America 
was led by a great Commander in Chief who had a plan to win the war and 
secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in 
sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.
  Mr. Speaker, I say with sadness that we have not that same quality of 
leadership throughout the conduct of the Iraq war. The results, not 
surprisingly, have been disastrous. To date, the war in Iraq has 
claimed the lives of 3,015 brave service, men and women, 115 in 
December and 13 in the first 9 days of this month. More than 22,000 
Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. 
American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this 
misadventure.
  Based on media reports, tonight President Bush will not be offering 
any new strategy for success in Iraq, just an increase in force levels 
of 20,000 American troops. This reported plan will not provide lasting 
security for Iraqis. It is not what the American people have asked for, 
nor what the American military needs. It will impose excessive and 
unwarranted burdens on military personnel and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, the architects of the fiasco in Iraq would have us 
believe that ``surging'' at least 20,000 more soldiers into Baghdad and 
nearby Anbar province is a change in military strategy that America 
must embrace or face future terrorist attacks on American soil. Nothing 
could be further from the truth, as we learned last year when the 
``surge'' idea first surfaced among neoconservatives.
  Mr. Speaker, the troop surge the President will announce tonight is 
not new and, judging from history, will not work. It will only succeed 
in putting more American troops in harm's way for no good reason and 
without any strategic advantage. Troop surges have been tried several 
times in the past. The success of these surges is, to put it 
charitably, has been underwhelming. Let's briefly review the record:
  1. Operation Together Forward, (June-October 2006): In June the Bush 
administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing 
the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the 
White House announced that additional American troops would be sent 
into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William 
Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a 
failure and had ``not met our overall expectations of sustaining a 
reduction in the levels of violence.'' [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 
7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.]
  2. Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): 
In the fall of 2005 the Bush administration increased troop levels by 
22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around the 
constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the 
elections went off without major violence these escalations had little 
long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American 
troops. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org]
  3. Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005): 
As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the 
Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the 
January 2005 constitutional elections U.S. forces were increased by 
12,000 to 150,000. Again there was no long-term security impact. 
[Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.]

[[Page 806]]

  4. Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a 
massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, 
troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000.
  Yet, the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf 
uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American 
forces. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA 
Today, 3/4/04]
  Mr. Speaker, stemming the chaos in Iraq, however, requires more than 
opposition to military escalation. It requires us to make hard choices. 
Our domestic national security, in fact, rests on redeploying our 
military force from Iraq in order to build a more secure Middle East 
and continue to fight against global terrorist networks elsewhere in 
the world. Strategic redeployment of our armed forces in order to 
rebuild our nation's fighting capabilities and renew our critical fight 
in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda is not just an 
alternative strategy. It's a strategic imperative.
  Mr. Speaker, it is past time for a new direction that can lead to 
success in Iraq. We cannot wait any longer. Too many Americans and 
Iraqis are dying who could otherwise be saved.
  I believe the time has come to debate, adopt, and implement the 
Murtha Plan for strategic redeployment. I am not talking about 
``immediate withdrawal,'' ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to 
terrorists, as the architects of the failed Administration Iraq policy 
like to claim. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq 
forever or the foreseeable future.
  I am talking about a strategic redeployment of troops that:
  Reduces U.S. troops in Iraq to 60,000 within six months, and to zero 
by the end of 2007, while redeploying troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, 
and the Persian Gulf. Engages in diplomacy to resolve the conflict 
within Iraq by convening a Geneva Peace Conference modeled on the 
Dayton Accords. Establishes a Gulf Security initiative to deal with the 
aftermath of U.S. redeployment from Iraq and the growing nuclear 
capabilities of Iran. Puts Iraq's reconstruction back on track with 
targeted international funds. Counters extremist Islamic ideology 
around the globe through longterm efforts to support the creation of 
democratic institutions and press freedoms.
  As the Center for American Progress documents in its last quarterly 
report (October 24, 2006), the benefits of strategic redeployment are 
significant:
  Restore the strength of U.S. ground troops. Exercise a strategic 
shift to meet global threats from Islamic extremists. Prevent U.S. 
troops from being caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. Avert 
mass sectarian and ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Provide time for Iraq's 
elected leaders to strike a power-sharing agreement. Empower Iraq's 
security forces to take control. Get Iraqis fighting to end the 
occupation to lay down their arms. Motivate the U.N., global, and 
regional powers to become more involved in Iraq. Give the U.S. the 
moral, political, and military power to deal with Iran's attempt to 
develop nuclear weapons. Prevent an outbreak of isolationism in the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than surging militarily for the third time in a 
year, the president should surge diplomatically. A further military 
escalation would simply mean repeating a failed strategy. A diplomatic 
surge would involve appointing an individual with the stature of a 
former secretary of state, such as Colin Powell or Madeleine Albright, 
as a special envoy. This person would be charged with getting all six 
of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and 
Kuwait--involved more constructively in stabilizing Iraq. These 
countries are already involved in a bilateral, self-interested and 
disorganized way.
  While their interests and ours are not identical, none of these 
countries wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, 
becomes a failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become 
a haven for terrorists or a hemorrhage of millions more refugees 
streaming into their countries.
  The high-profile envoy would also address the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, the role of Hezbollah and Syria in Lebanon, and Iran's rising 
influence in the region. The aim would not be necessarily to solve 
these problems, but to prevent them from getting worse and to show the 
Arab and Muslim world that we share their concerns about the problems 
in this region.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's plan has not worked. Doing the same 
thing over and over and expecting a different result is, as we all 
know, a definition of insanity. It is time to try something new. It is 
time for change. It is time for a new direction.

                          ____________________