[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23504-23505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in 
Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy 
picture and to cling to straws when the situation on the ground and 
common sense suggest just the opposite.
  Some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working, but all you have 
to do is look at the facts to know that is not the case. The President 
went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a place of 
success, but we all know what is happening in Iraq. Many other 
provinces are in terrible shape. In Iraq, in a certain sense, when you 
push on one end of the balloon and make things a little better, 
something pops out at another end.
  The fallacy of the President's new policy is amazing. Are we placing 
our faith in the future of Iraq in the hands of some warlords, some 
tribal leaders who at the moment dislike al-Qaida more than they 
dislike us? Make no mistake about it: They are no friends of Americans. 
Is this the vaunted clarion cry for democracy in the Middle East that 
the President announced when he started the buildup in Iraq? Obviously 
not. This is a policy of last resort. This is a policy of desperation. 
To say at the moment that some warlords in one province in Iraq happen 
to be shooting at al-Qaida when 6 months from now they could easily 
turn around and resume shooting at Americans, which they did in the 
past, is nothing to base a policy on. What kind of policy is it? What 
are the odds that 6 months from now, the fragile and perilous situation 
in Anbar will reverse itself and collapse? We have heard of success 
stories every 6 or 8 months: This province, this town, this city--they 
are clear, they are safe. Then, because of the basic facts on the 
ground, we revert to the old situation.
  Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the 
surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to 
protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes: we have to 
fight al-Qaida ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here; 
it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace 
here, and that is because there was no one else there protecting them.
  As I said, we have heard about successes in the past. They are 
temporary. They are not based on any permanent structural change or any 
permanent change in the views of Iraqi citizens. We have heard about 
success in Baghdad. We have heard about success in Fallujah. We have 
heard about success in this province and that province, and it vanishes 
like the wind. So now, at a time when the people of America are crying 
out for a change in course, are some going to base a temporary 
situation in one province--Anbar--based on a few warlords who don't 
believe in democracy and who don't like America, as a way to continue 
the present misguided policy? It makes no sense.
  It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. 
There is no central government that has any viability. The Shiites, the 
Kurds, and the Sunnis dislike one another far more than they like or 
want any central government, and these two facts doom the 
administration's policy to failure. Only 7 or 8 months ago when the 
President began the surge, he said it was to give the present 
Government breathing room, to strengthen the Maliki government. Today, 
we have more troops, more military patrols, more death, and the Iraqi 
Government grows weaker. How can we regard the Bush-Petraeus surge as a 
success when its central goal--to strengthen the Government--has 
failed? Again, more troops, more American deaths this summer than any 
other, and yet the Government is weaker, when the very purpose of the 
surge was to strengthen the Government and, in the President's words, 
to give it breathing room. By the President's own words, the Government 
is suffocating while the surge goes on. It doesn't have breathing room.
  Why isn't it apparent to the President? Why isn't it apparent to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the stated goal of the 
surge is failing? Strengthening the central government has not 
happened. As the surge and the number of troops goes up, the strength 
of the central government goes down. That equation says failure in the 
Bush-Petraeus surge.
  The goal is not a military goal. In the President's own words, it is 
to give the Government of Iraq greater stability, greater breathing 
room, and that Government, by just about every standard, is worse off 
than it was before. Again, because a few warlords and tribal leaders 
are now temporarily on our side for the moment, even though they are 
not loyal to us, they don't like us and they dislike the central 
government, that is why we should continue the present course in Iraq? 
It makes no sense.
  Then those on the other side of the President say, give us a chance; 
you are already declaring defeat. If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 
maybe even 2006, maybe those words would have some resonance with the 
American people. But there has been new plan after new plan, new hope 
after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, 
because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the 
Shiites, the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central 
government.
  If you look at the benchmarks, they show that. The independent GAO 
report showed little progress being made in meeting the 18 military and 
political benchmarks set out by Congress. The draft report from last 
week showed only three of the benchmarks had been met. However, over 
the weekend, the Pentagon revised the report and now miraculously an 
additional four benchmarks were ``partially met.'' Despite the apparent 
efforts by the Pentagon to edit this independent report, it will sadly 
take much more than a red pen to correct the failures of the 
President's Iraq policy.
  So the surge, by the President's own stated goal, has failed. The 
central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue 
to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central 
government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel 
in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple: We are worse off, 
not better off, not even the same, in Iraq today than we were 6 months 
ago. The position of America, the position of democracy, the position 
of stability, continues to erode.
  If there was ever a need for a change of course in Iraq, it is now. I 
plead with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. You know we 
have to change course. The President has thrown you this magical sort 
of temporary solution--Anbar Province. Don't be fooled. It is no 
different than Fallujah was a few years ago, or Baghdad, or all of 
these other ``successes.'' They are not successes because the facts on 
the ground are the same.
  The American people--three-quarters--cry out for a change of course 
in Iraq. The President doesn't hear them. The President doesn't look at 
the facts on the ground. The very same fallacies

[[Page 23505]]

that led us into this war--that there were weapons of mass destruction 
and Iraq was at the center of a nexus of terrorism--are now blinding my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle from changing course in 
Iraq--the same types of false statements and pretenses. It is time to 
change course for the sake of the soldiers who are valiantly defending 
us; for the sake of moving on and having America focus on other 
international problems and not have them be exacerbated by the war in 
Iraq; for the sake of the $500 billion to $600 billion we spent that 
could be spent here on education and health care and infrastructure; 
for the sake, ultimately, of the greatness of this great country of 
ours, we must change course in Iraq. We must do it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

                          ____________________