[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19283-19285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAQ WITHDRAWAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment today to 
this year's Defense authorization bill regarding Iraq. I understand the 
leadership has decided to act on the Levin-Reed amendment before 
considering other amendments to this legislation. Given the existing 
parliamentary situation, I am not confident there will be an 
opportunity to get an up-or-down vote on my amendment or, for that 
matter, any other amendments that meaningfully mandates a change of 
course with respect to the administration's policy in Iraq.
  It is deeply troubling and it saddens me that in the Senate, on the 
most critical issue of our day, we cannot consider, debate or vote on 
amendments affecting the lives and well-being of our servicemen and 
women and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the most troubled spot 
in the world today. I believe those who refuse to allow this Senate to 
vote on this critical issue do a grave disservice to the American 
people by enabling the President to continue with his failed strategy 
in Iraq.
  Every additional day we ``stay the course'' in Iraq, our Nation is 
less safe and the people of Iraq get further away from coming together 
to fashion a political and diplomatic solution to their civil conflict. 
Our men and women in uniform have served this Nation valiantly in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and they will continue to do so, I am confident, until 
our political leaders see the error of their judgment in this case and 
begin the process of drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq.
  It is imperative, I believe, we change course in Iraq immediately. I 
think this is vitally important for our country and the well-being of 
that part of the world. Sadly, the President and his allies stand in 
the way of that goal. Support for the President's policy erodes as each 
passing day unfolds with more violence and chaos in Iraq.
  I predict the day will come when Congress will have the courage to 
say enough is enough, but, sadly, it would not be before more American 
lives are lost or more wanton destruction occurs in the beleaguered 
nation of Iraq.
  Let me speak briefly about the amendment I had hoped to offer--still 
hope to offer--and which I would like to offer at the earliest 
opportunity if, in fact, this logjam breaks. My amendment seeks to 
accomplish two critical tasks. First, to bring the Iraq war to a close 
by ending the financing of combat operations, mandating a phased 
redeployment of combat forces from Iraq, and ensuring the 
administration actually carries out that redeployment.
  Second, the amendment proposes to redirect any savings realized from 
a reduced military presence in Iraq, to restore the readiness of our 
very war-battered National Guard and armed services. I strongly believe 
we must not wait any longer to achieve either task.
  Now is the time for us to make difficult choices. Now is the time for 
the Senate to enact legislation that, I believe, will hold this 
administration accountable to this policy.
  I support the Levin-Reed amendment, and I thank both our colleagues, 
the authors of that amendment, for demonstrating leadership in trying 
to move this body one step closer to bringing this disastrous war to a 
close. It is my hope that their amendment will do that, but I remain 
concerned about some aspects of that amendment--the extended delay in 
commencing redeployment and the absence of any funding linkage to 
redeployment. Based on past experiences with this administration, my 
concern is the President will simply ignore the legislation proposed by 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the senior Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  It has been quite difficult to track the ever-changing justifications 
for continuing our combat operations in Iraq, including the surge, and 
there appears to be no end in sight.
  First, the administration simply refused to admit there was no 
military solution in Iraq or that Iraq was in a State of civil war.
  Then, instead of acting upon a unique chance to implement the 
bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, which Congress supported, 
Secretary Rice explained that the administration was implementing a 
surge tactic, but assured us that it was an Iraqi plan. ``Most 
importantly,'' she claimed, ``the Iraqis have devised their own 
strategy, and our efforts will support theirs.''
  Our country was told that despite the catastrophic policy failures of 
this administration up until that point, that the surge would take time 
to work and that we couldn't judge its success until U.S. forces had 
``surged'' to their maximum levels--and that would take up to 6 months.
  But that the surge is at full force, and we are told yet again that 
the time isn't right to make a judgment about the success or failure of 
the administration's policy. Now we are told we must wait until 
September to determine the success of the surge. I strongly suspect, as 
I stand here in July, that as September draws near the administration 
will once again come up with some additional arguments to delay the day 
of reckoning on the policy in Iraq.
  I do not need any more time, or any more reports and briefings to 
confirm what most of us already know. The American people and the Iraqi 
people don't need any more time to realize that the administration's 
Iraq policy, including the surge, has been a failure. With the 
exception of a handful in this body, I have not said anything that most 
of my colleagues do not believe themselves. Why, then, are we waiting? 
As we wait yet another 2 or 3 months to decide what most of us here 
have already concluded, while disagreeing about how best to achieve 
this result, there is a consensus that has emerged that I think is 
probably more than a supermajority. After all the time waiting here, 
our servicemen and women and the beleaguered people of Iraq will pay an 
awful price indeed, as we fool around and dicker while deciding to come 
to the conclusion we have all basically reached already.
  The highly respected International Crisis Group recently released a 
report on Iraq which examined the complex reasons for the current 
political violence in Iraq, and concluded that any surge based on a 
purely military operation with a simplistic view of the bloodshed's 
origins was destined for failure.
  We mustn't sacrifice any more lives, we shouldn't countenance any 
more bloodshed, and we shouldn't support the continuation of the failed 
escalation of a disastrous policy. The April-May American death toll is 
a new 2-month record. The civilian casualty rate in Iraq is at an all-
time high. Overall violence in Iraq is up and, according to the Iraqi 
Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced Iraqis has quadrupled 
since January. In fact, the Iraqi Red Crescent warns that there is 
currently a human tragedy unprecedented in Iraq's history.''
  As recent GAO reports have highlighted what we all intuitively have 
concluded--that there has been little progress on the key detailed 
provisions of Iraq's hydrocarbon law, let alone on reforming the Iraqi 
constitution, on debaathification, or on a host of other essential 
political components to a functioning Iraqi government, focused on 
reconciliation. In fact, Foreign Policy magazine recently released 
their ``failed state index'' and Iraq rose to No. 2 on that index, 
closely behind Sudan.
  The President told the American people that the surge of troops into 
key cities in Iraq was being executed in order to provide the Iraqis 
with some political breathing space to start the reconciliation 
process. Secretary Rice explained that ``the most urgent task now is to 
help the Iraqi government establish the confidence that it can and will 
protect all of its citizens, regardless of their sectarian identity, 
and that it will reinforce security with political reconciliation and 
economic support.''
  But none of that has happened--and falsely claiming that it has, 
won't make us safer, won't secure Iraq, won't secure our interests in 
the region, and won't rebuild our military.

[[Page 19284]]

  As my friend Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee said recently

       In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an 
     effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects 
     for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do 
     not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve 
     goals that it cannot achieve. It distances allies that we 
     will need for any regional diplomatic effort. Its failure, 
     without a careful transition to a back-up policy would 
     intensify our loss of credibility. It uses tremendous amounts 
     of resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure 
     our objectives.

  I fully agree with my friend and colleague from Indiana.
  That is why my amendment also calls on the administration to appoint 
a high-level special envoy to Iraq to engage in a new diplomatic 
offensive--exactly what the Baker Hamilton Commission called for over 6 
months ago. It is imperative that we engage Iraqi leaders, regional 
leaders and international organizations such as the United Nations and 
the Arab League to promote reconciliation and stability in Iraq. I know 
of no other way this is likely to occur.
  This administration has long neglected the key diplomatic and 
political aspects of the conflict in Iraq, despite the calls of many of 
us, including my good friend Senator Hagel, who recently outlined a 
plan to ``internationalize'' our efforts to help Iraqis reach political 
reconciliation, including appointing a U.N. Security Council-backed 
international mediator.
  The amendment offered by Senators Levin and Reed also calls for such 
a mediator, which I fully support.
  But, despite the fact that there is no military solution to this 
conflict, which we have said for now almost 3\1/2\ years, this 
administration and too many in the Congress are still wedded to only 
military solutions. In fact, these defenders of the Iraq war continue 
claim that we are in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, just like they continue to 
falsely claim that al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein.
  But according to a recent article by Michael Gordon, the coauthor of 
Cobra II:

       al-Qaida in Mesopotamia [the action of al-Qaida currently 
     in Iraq] did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. This 
     Sunni group has thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a 
     force for violence largely because of the American invasion 
     of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of 
     more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and 
     led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

  Moreover, according to recent media accounts, it is the Mahdi Army, a 
Shiite militia led by the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, not al-Qaida 
in Mesopotamia that poses the greatest risk to American troops in 
Baghdad. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Mahdi Army's 
frequent and brazen attacks on U.S. soldiers also appear to challenge 
the idea that the Mahdi Army has been lying low to avoid confrontations 
with Americans.
  Perhaps most frustrating of all, while feverishly attempting to find 
linkages between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi insurgents, the 
administration has taken its eye off the ball of the bigger threats 
posed by looming terrorists having little or nothing to do with Iraq.
  The GAO recently slammed the administration's anti-terrorism efforts 
in a report entitled ``Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives to 
Assist Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt and Prosecute Terrorists.'' 
The report found that there is a tremendous deficit of communication 
and coordination among key U.S. agencies, which in turn severely 
hampers our efforts at fighting international terrorism and aiding 
foreign governments in doing so.
  Six years after 9/11, this administration has singularly focused on 
Iraq, while failing to effectively fight international terrorism. It 
may be true that for the Bush administration that Iraq is the central 
front in their ``war on terror'', but this misplaced focus has made 
America less secure as a result.
  Simply put, we must stop the downward spiral in Iraq, and refocus our 
efforts at effectively and robustly combating extremism and terrorism 
around the world--and my amendment would begin to do just that. Why is 
that the case?
  Because my amendment sets clear timelines for the phased redeployment 
of our troops out of Iraq, with three specific exceptions for 
activities that are critical to our national security interests and the 
interests of Iraq: First, conducting counterrorism operations in Iraq, 
targeted at al-Qaida in Mesopotamia; second, training and equipping 
Iraqi forces; and third, force protection for U.S. personnel and 
infrastructure.
  This amendment also provides a specific timeline for all combat 
forces to redeploy out of Iraq, aside from the three exceptions I just 
mentioned, by April 30, 2008.
  To ensure that this process gets underway without any stonewalling by 
the administration or anyone in his administration, my amendment sets 
an interim deadline of December 31, 2007, at which point at least 
50,000 troops must have been redeployed out of Iraq.
  Failure to meet this initial milestone will result in a funding 
penalty. The amendment would withhold 25 percent of the fiscal year 
2008 military budget for Iraq-related activities until the President 
certifies that he can meet the overall April 30, 2008, deadline.
  Ultimately, this amendment calls for the redeployment of 
approximately 90,000 combat troops within the next 9 months, leaving 
about 70,000 to complete the three non-combat missions that I have 
already outlined.
  The redeployed forces would be comprised of a majority of the 
deployed Army brigade combat teams and the Marine Expeditionary Force 
currently in theater.
  Now, some may say that such redeployment is not logistically 
achievable within the timeframes laid out in the amendment.
  However, I want to remind my colleagues that in the ramp up to the 
first gulf war, the Department of Defense coordinated the movement of 
over 500,000 troops and 10 million tons of cargo and fuel in the same 
timeframe that this amendment grants to redeploy a force one-fifth the 
size.
  In January 1991, alone, the Transportation Command moved 
approximately 132,000 troops, 1 million tons of cargo, and over 1 
million tons of fuel. If it is possible to coordinate the logistics to 
go to war, it is certainly possible, in my view, to get our troops out 
of harm's way and bring our military involvement in this civil war to a 
close.
  Of course, there is always a concern about the cost of conducting a 
redeployment. Senator Conrad, now chairman of the Budget Committee, 
asked this very question to the Congressional Budget Office in 2002, 
requesting an assessment of the costs of the Iraq war; including the 
eventual redeployment of our forces. The CBO concluded that the 
redeployment of our forces to their home bases would cost approximately 
$7 billion, less than the cost of 1 month of ongoing operations in 
Iraq.
  Can we trust this figure? The very same report notes that monthly 
costs for the war would run between $6 billion and $9 billion per 
month--that was in 2002; which is exactly what we saw until the 
incursion of additional surge related costs.
  Up until now, the cost of the war in Iraq has been mainly measured in 
the number of lives lost and U.S. Treasury spent--and rightly so. Mr. 
President, 3,600 brave American servicemembers have been killed, tens 
of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, and Congress has approved 
approximately $450 billion.
  But there is yet another cost of war--our military's readiness.
  While long, arduous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are testing 
the morale of our troops in the field and their families, they are also 
taxing critical stocks of aircraft, vehicles and equipment that our 
military needs to prepare for other challenges in the 21st century.
  According to recent military reports, two-thirds of the U.S. Army is 
unable to report for combat duty, and the Army's top generals have said 
that if the administration continues to fail to meet these needs, the 
situation could further deteriorate.
  The situation for our National Guard is even worse. According to 
National Guard Bureau Chief, LTG Steven Blum, ``88 percent of the force 
that are back here in the United States are very

[[Page 19285]]

poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard.'' Such a statistic is 
unconscionable to me--and it affects the National Guard units in every 
State of every last Senator in this Chamber.
  My amendment will take steps to remedy this dire situation and begin 
to rebuild our military. This debate is about priorities. Will we 
continue to fund a failed strategy, in my view, in Iraq that is leaving 
us less secure and that is hollowing out our military?
  Or will we meet our commitments to our service members and our 
Nation, by restoring the readiness of our forces which have been 
severely damaged by this administration's policies?
  In my view, the answer is simple. Our military's top generals and 
admirals have submitted to Congress lists of critical military 
priorities that would not be funded under the President's fiscal year 
2008 budget proposal.
  Billions of dollars a week are being squandered in Iraq, while our 
Nation's military is calling out for additional resources to repair the 
damage caused by the administration's policies.
  My amendment therefore reprioritizes our defense budget to rebuild 
our military. It stops financing combat missions in Iraq and redirects 
funding to meeting priorities for the armed services.
  Savings made available by downsizing our force in Iraq would be 
invested in items identified by each of our military's Service Chiefs. 
Funding levels for these items would not exceed the amounts specified 
in their official fiscal year 2008 unfunded requirements lists 
submitted to Congress earlier this year.
  The Army Chief of Staff has found over $10 billion in critical 
shortfalls, including funding for specially armored trucks known as 
MRAPs or mine resistant ambush protected vehicles; night vision 
goggles, and bomb disposal gear.
  The Marine Corps' ``unfunded requirement list'' submitted by the 
Commandant includes over $3 billion for similar priorities as well as 
new helicopters; communications gear and training equipment.
  The Navy's list totals over $5.6 billion, including helicopters, 
sailor housing, and aircraft maintenance.
  The Air Force's unfunded priorities, totaling over $16 billion, 
includes much needed resources to modernize radar systems and restore 
our fleet of cargo aircraft to help redeploy our troops and their 
equipment.
  The National Guard Bureau Chief has identified over a billion dollars 
needed to begin rebuilding Guard forces across the United States--to 
replace and repair vehicles, aircraft, and personal gear, necessary for 
homeland security missions.
  The amendment I would like to offer would allow for funding to 
restore National Guard equipment readiness. Due to the administration's 
mismanagement, the National Guard is facing a $38 billion equipment 
shortfall, according to General Blum.
  A recent report by the U.S. Commission on the National Guard and 
Reserves disclosed that the administration's policies have actually 
endangered the Guard's abilities to perform both their overseas and 
homeland defense missions. Under orders by the administration, the 
National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment 
in Iraq and Afghanistan for our troops rotating into combat theaters. 
Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down or 
destroyed in battle, but any critical equipment that may have survived 
is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  In my home State of Connecticut, the adjutant general, MG Thaddeus 
Martin, recently reported that equipment shortages exceed $200 million 
in my State. This includes more than 200 humvees, 21 large support 
vehicles and tankers and heavy-cargo vehicles, over 600 personnel and 
crew-served weapons systems, over 1,500 night-vision devices, and even 
one medium-lift helicopter.
  What does all of this mean? It means that we are short of equipment 
to respond to natural or manmade disasters here at home, short of 
equipment for training, short of equipment to maintain the standard of 
maintenance rotation for equipment currently in the field, short of 
equipment for units deploying into harm's way--short of equipment to 
protect the American people themselves.
  The Government Accountability Office highlighted this very important 
point in testimony released on October 20, 2005, and I quote it. It 
stated:

       The cumulative effect of these personnel and equipment 
     transfers has been a decline in the readiness of Army 
     National Guard forces for future missions, both overseas and 
     at home.

  This data alone should demonstrate to everyone unequivocally that 
each of us has to fulfill our obligations to our warfighters. Now is 
the time to begin the rebuilding process. In my view, the sooner we 
redeploy out of Iraq, get our military out of that situation, the 
sooner we can redirect these vital funds to rebuild our forces here at 
home.
  None of our choices are easy. I don't suggest by my remarks here that 
they are. But they are clear choices. It is about time we made them. To 
govern is to choose the policy that is best for our Nation, even in the 
face of extreme difficulty. So I call on my colleagues here today to 
make those choices which experience, commonsense, and overwhelming data 
compel; that is, to force the President to redeploy, to rebuild our 
Armed Forces, and to end this disastrous involvement in the civil war.
  The last several months have been a story of squandered chances. We 
have paid for them in American lives. Again, to delay another 2 or 3 
months to arrive at a conclusion most of us have already arrived at is 
something I think is unacceptable. And that lives which may be lost or 
damaged because we waited 2 or 3 months to arrive at a conclusion that 
most here already believe to be the case, is certainly a sad day for 
this body. We cannot even have votes, we cannot even consider the 
various ideas we bring to the Chamber that might bring this war and our 
involvement in it to a close.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________