[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     REDEPLOY FOR A SECURE AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, a little over 5 years ago, I was in the war 
in Afghanistan, first on the ground for a very short period of time, 
and then I returned in charge of an aircraft carrier battle group. I 
saw a just war.
  Eighteen months later, I went back to Afghanistan, on the ground 
again, and saw what we had not accomplished because we had diverted our 
attention and our resources, our Special Forces, our Psychological 
Operation Forces, our Civil Affairs Forces, those and our attention 
were diverted to the tragic misadventure in Iraq.
  To me, Afghanistan is a poster child for what we have failed to do, 
and that is to remain engaged throughout this world, to be ready here 
at home in order to provide for a strong defense in support of our 
diplomacy of engagement.
  I am not antiwar. I am pro-security. And that is my concern, that 
Iraq is every day seriously degrading the strategic security of 
America. It is why I believe that there is a different strategy to 
redeploy from Iraq with a date that is certain, one that is out there 
in order to change the behavior of those nations in that region, give 
them a different incentive to work towards stability so that as we 
redeploy over a fixed timetable, we will leave behind a state that is 
fairly stable and that is not failing.
  I believe, having been in Iraq with Senator Hagel and having traveled 
throughout that country, that my belief is only reinforced that we can 
no longer provide the political and the military cover for the Iraqi 
leadership that has failed to step up to the plate, that has failed, 
being in control of 32 ministries in Baghdad, to stop pursuing personal 
ambition, establishing personal fiefdom as our soldiers provide them 
not only the military, but the political cover, not to take the 
challenging decisions that they must take.
  But I also believe, beyond that it is wrong to double-down on a bad 
bet by putting more troops into what is a civil war and that our 
military cannot resolve, the best military in the world, I believe a 
date certain also changes the incentives, the structure of incentives 
to change the behavior of Iran and Syria.
  Everywhere Senator Hagel and I went in Iraq we heard that Iran has 
undue influence. Yes, they do. We're bleeding, bleeding profusely. But 
when I asked our senior political leader there, if we were to redeploy, 
does Iran want a failed state? The answer was, no, they don't. With a 
date certain and the confidence the United States should have, having 
dealt with the Soviet Union, having dealt with the People's Republic of 
China, bringing it into the world's community, we should have the 
confidence to deal with Iran and Syria. Bring them together to work, 
with a date certain as their incentive toward working on the extreme 
elements in Iraq as we work in the center to bring about an unfailed 
state that can only be brought about by a date that is certain to 
redeploy.
  It took us 6 months to redeploy from Somalia, a much smaller 
contingency of forces. We have over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, in 
addition to our troops. I believe that the Democratic leadership, 
working with the Republicans, should work towards what the President 
said. We will not have an open-ended commitment. With a date certain, 
working together, we can, on an authorization bill, a bill that 
establishes a date beyond which no funding would be permitted for 
troops within Iraq, while we use appropriations bills to continue to 
fund our forces so that we do not ever again, as we did in the last 
month, place those forces, those whom we serve with, wearing the cloth 
of our Nation that we sent to war, that we never again play a game of 
chicken between us and the President.
  Being in the military is a dangerous business. It has, as someone 
said, the dignity of danger. It does not, however, have to be unsafe. 
Fund them fully with a date that is certain in our authorization bill 
by which we must redeploy, with enough timeline that the nations there 
can be brought together under U.S. leadership to bring about, by the 
only possible means that it can be done, diplomacy, strong diplomacy, 
as we remain in the region on our bases in Amman, Qatar, Bahrain, 
carrier battle groups, disengage, reengage in Afghanistan as well as 
here at home and elsewhere around this world in order to bring about a 
stronger security for America.

                          ____________________