[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 836-837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  A NEW PATH FOR AMERICA'S IRAQ POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 9, 2007

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, President Bush's misadventure in Iraq 
may be the worst foreign policy disaster the United States has ever 
been involved in. It is good that Saddam Hussein is out of power, but 
it has come at an incredibly high price. More than 3,000 of America's 
soldiers have been killed and thousands more have been wounded, many 
very seriously. And hundreds of billions of tax dollars have been 
spent, and in some cases wasted, in Iraq. This has occurred because of 
the errors in judgment, tactical mistakes, and other major missteps by 
the Bush administration that have plagued this endeavor since the brave 
men and women in our military ended the tyrannical reign of Saddam 
Hussein.
  In addition to the high cost in lives and dollars that we have 
suffered, the reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place have 
proven faulty. Furthermore, as the recent report from the Iraq Study 
Group, ISG, states, the situation in Iraq is ``grave and 
deteriorating,'' with violence among sectarian groups increasing. 
Threats to security come from many sources, including the Sunni Arab 
insurgency, Shiite militias, and al Qaeda, not to mention widespread 
organized crime. Millions of Iraqis have either fled Iraq or are 
displaced within their country. Given all of this discouraging 
information, we need to ask--Why are our soldiers still in Iraq and why 
should they not come home immediately?
  Unfortunately, it is not possible to turn back the clock 4 years and 
start again. The United States and the rest of the world, not to 
mention the Iraqi people, have to construct a policy that deals with 
the current conditions that have created new threats. If Iraq did not 
occupy such a critical place in the world, it might be the best policy 
for America to simply pull our troops out as soon as safely possible 
and leave the Iraqi people to work out a solution. But, Iraq is in one 
of the most important locations in the world, and although the 
situation in Iraq is dire, it could get much worse.
  First, Iraq sits on the world's second largest oil reserves. While I 
have been working hard to bring about an energy policy that will wean 
America and the world off our dependence on this fossil fuel, it will 
continue to be an extremely valuable commodity for whoever controls it. 
That is why we must ensure that Iraq's oil does not fall into the hands 
of radical groups. Oil revenue could be used to fund the spread of 
radical Islamist revolution to other countries as well as threaten the 
rest of the world with terrorist attacks. The United States abandoned 
Afghanistan after the Cold War ended and that country became a haven 
for terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks. Iraq would likely become 
an even worse terrorist training ground.
  Second, Iraq is wedged between two countries that have shown 
themselves to be belligerent, Syria and Iran. Iran is working on 
building a nuclear weapons capability and has threatened to destroy the 
state of Israel. Syria has continuously meddled in the affairs of 
Lebanon and provides ongoing support to terrorists in Palestine. Both 
of these countries have been active in supporting groups in Iraq who 
are wreaking havoc and both seek to increase their power by exploiting 
the situation in Iraq. Leaving Iraq immediately would only embolden 
these regimes and allow them greater influence throughout the Middle 
East. Consequently, a stable Iraq is necessary to limit the power of 
these two dangerous countries.
  Third, an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops would create regional 
instability that could result in a large-scale war. If Iraq falls into 
complete chaos, Iran and Syria will likely get more directly involved 
in the fighting. In addition, Saudi Arabia has said that they may 
intervene militarily in Iraq if they believe it is necessary to stop a 
widespread slaughter of Iraqi Sunnis. If chaos in Iraq propels Iraqi 
Kurds to attempt to break away and form their own country in the north 
of Iraq, Turkey may feel the need to intervene so as to quell any 
nationalist uprising of Kurds within their own borders. And these are 
only a few of the likely scenarios for a larger conflict. Clearly, the 
prospect of a multi-nation war is even less appealing than the current 
situation, and the United States must act to try to head-off conditions 
that may lead to such a catastrophe.
  As long as there is still hope that we can serve a positive role in 
Iraq, the U.S. must not

[[Page 837]]

abandon Iraq and leave the situation to deteriorate. However, a new 
strategy in Iraq is needed now. This new Iraq policy must be based on 
the understanding that the keys to a solution in Iraq are political and 
social. Although it is important to recognize that an enforcement 
capability is necessary for security at any given place and time, peace 
and stability in Iraq cannot be won and maintained simply through 
military force. Therefore, the United States should implement a new 
Iraq policy based on three important components:
  (1) Bring the world community together to seek solutions in Iraq, 
including calling an international conference that will work on putting 
together a peacekeeping force and setting up an international 
reconstruction program.
  (2) Encourage achievement of important goals in national 
reconciliation, security, and governance by arranging a peace 
conference for Iraq's ethnic and religious factions, similar to the 
conference that led to the Dayton Accords.
  (3) Require the administration to give Congress detailed reports on 
the situation in Iraq so that informed decisions can be made regarding 
funding Iraq's reconstruction and deciding when American forces can be 
redeployed.
  First, the United States must bring the world community together to 
seek solutions in Iraq. Iraq's oil reserves, strategic location in the 
Middle East, and its potential to become a failed-state breeding ground 
for international terrorism dictate that the entire international 
community has an interest in Iraq's success. The administration and the 
State Department must make more of an effort to utilize America's 
considerable diplomatic resources in order to rally international 
involvement in Iraq.
  In rallying support, the U.S. should start by talking to all of 
Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Iraq's sectarian violence, 
while rooted in centuries old conflicts, is being at least partially 
fueled by Iran and Syria. Consequently, the United States must be 
willing to work with Iran and Syria as well as all other nations in the 
region and around the world. But talking does not mean ceding to all 
requests that these countries make. Iran must not become a nuclear 
power and Syria must not once again move into Lebanon. But the United 
States should be willing to engage with these and other nations if we 
are to move forward with international cooperation on Iraq.
  As part of bringing the world community together, the U.S. should 
call an international conference on Iraq. This conference will work on 
putting together an international peacekeeping force that will replace 
American and other troops that are currently in Iraq. A second purpose 
of this conference will be to put together an international 
reconstruction plan for Iraq. Iraq still suffers from critical 
shortages in electricity and drinking water, while infrastructure such 
as oil wells and roads remain in a state of disrepair. Many Iraqis 
remain unemployed and impoverished, making them easy recruits for 
sectarian militias and terrorist groups. While Congress must be given 
more complete information and oversight over U.S. reconstruction aid 
being sent to Iraq so that American money can be spent more 
effectively, the international community must also be called upon to 
provide other aid and plans for Iraq's rebuilding.
  Second, the United States should join with other nations to arrange a 
peace conference--akin to the meetings that led to the Dayton Accords--
that will bring together Iraqi leaders to achieve important goals in 
national reconciliation, security, and governance. Broad-based pressure 
from a variety of international sources can make a difference in 
situations like Iraq's, as evidenced by the 1995 Dayton Accords that 
ended the war in Bosnia. Much like the current conflict in Iraq, the 
war in Bosnia was fueled by ethnic and religious divisions. However, 
after intense pressure from the international community, the warring 
parties came to the negotiating table in Dayton, Ohio and an agreement 
was reached. With similar international pressure applied to Iraqi 
leaders, and promises of international peacekeeping forces and 
increased reconstruction aid, it is my hope that Iraq's warring 
factions would peacefully come to the negotiating table. Peace 
discussions could take place in a country seen as a more neutral 
arbitrator than the U.S. such as El Salvador, which has proven its 
commitment to Iraqi stability by providing over 300 soldiers for 
peacekeeping operations. El Salvador would serve as a good location 
because it is physically far away from Iraq and provides an easily 
secured environment. In addition, El Salvador has special standing 
because it has had experience with its own civil war and subsequent 
aftermath.
  Third, the administration must be required to give Congress detailed 
reports on the situation in Iraq, especially in regard to security and 
progress on reconstruction. One of the reasons Iraq has reached this 
point is that the Republican Congress gave the administration free rein 
on Iraq policy without asking questions. The Democratic Congress must, 
and will, act differently. The start will be bringing the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Defense, military commanders, the members of 
the Iraq Study Group, and other leading experts on Iraq to testify 
before congressional committees. Also, we must require from the 
administration a written, detailed report on the current security and 
reconstruction situation in Iraq with mandatory monthly follow-up 
reports.
  Up to this point it appears that decisions regarding Iraq have been 
made based upon politics and not facts, political calculation instead 
of national interest. There is no place for partisan politics when it 
comes to the use of military force. The lives of our brave men and 
women should not be affected by political whims. That is why Congress 
must demand information from the administration. When Congress is fully 
informed we will be able to make intelligent decisions, based on our 
national interest, about when U.S. forces can be redeployed from Iraq. 
I believe that with congressional oversight and greater international 
involvement, U.S. troops will be able to start redeployment from Iraq 
in 2007, with or without the President's leadership.
  Clearly, America needs a new direction in Iraq. President Bush is 
scheduled to announce his new plan very soon. Since the overthrow of 
Saddam Hussein, nothing that this administration has done has yet 
proven to be successful in Iraq. But I will wait to hear the President 
and I will listen to the congressional hearings before I make a final 
decision on his proposal. However, if President Bush were to follow the 
three-point proposal laid out here, we would truly be moving forward in 
a new direction that will help stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home 
soon.

                          ____________________