[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23737-23739]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we approach the sixth anniversary of 
September 11, 2001, we are reminded of the consequences of ignoring the 
threat al-Qaida and other ``mufsidoon'' terrorists pose to our Nation. 
Al-Qaida and radical extremists declared war, or ``Hirabah,'' on this 
Nation in the early 1990s, and not until 2001 did we finally take that 
threat seriously. While some in our own country refuse to believe this 
reality, that terrorists--Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri--agree 
that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, our entire 
intelligence community testified in open session before the Senate 
Intelligence Committee last January that to retreat from Iraq 
prematurely on a political timetable would invite disaster. They 
testified that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces would lead 
to chaos, regional sectarian conflict, Shias and Sunnis killing each 
other. It would create a safe haven from which al-Qaida could launch 
further and much more robust attacks on America, and it could lead to 
the possible deployment of troops, this time not to a fledgling 
democracy but to prevent the spread of a radical Islamic Caliphate, 
with a capital in Baghdad and borders reaching from Spain to Indonesia. 
A precipitous withdrawal would also send a message to the enemies of 
freedom all over the world that the American people lack the resolve to 
win; that while our brave military cannot be defeated, politicians in 
Washington can; that when the going gets tough, America gets going--
home.
  Next week, General Petraeus will deliver a progress report on the new 
strategy in Iraq. I expect this report to show that finally we are 
seeing real progress in the security situation in several key areas. 
This issue should not be a political one, but unfortunately there are 
those who are politicizing our fight there. This battle is too 
important to be used by those who want to declare defeat in Iraq for 
their own short-term political gains in 2008, claims such as, ``the war 
is lost,'' and claims that the success of the surge ``misses the 
point'' are troubling at best and dangerous at the worst.
  Sadly, there are some in this body who are vested politically in 
defeat. I find it disappointing that some in Congress would now say 
they will refuse even to believe General Petraeus, despite the fact 
Democrats and Republicans unanimously approved his appointment in 
February.
  General Petraeus takes his responsibility for our troops on the front 
line seriously. He is highly respected, has an outstanding military 
career, and should be listened to. I am confident he will deliver a 
report based on facts on the ground and not political conditions at 
home.
  I hope more of my colleagues will listen to our military leaders when 
they deliver Iraq's progress report. The worst case scenario would be 
for a majority in Congress to ignore our military leaders and continue 
to demand timetables, withdrawal dates, and attempts to control troop 
movements. Military decisions must be made by our military commanders 
on the ground, not micromanaged by Congress in our wonderful air-
conditioned hall, thousands of miles away.
  We have seen what has happened in the past when politicians have 
tried to run a war--from Vietnam to the Iranian hostage crisis.
  On the political front, I agree that Prime Minister Maliki is not 
getting the job done, at least not getting the job done on the 
timetable that we have artificially set, but that much more work needs 
to be done. However, as we have seen for months now, progress is 
occurring from the bottom up at the local level. Our military, our 
leaders, and our troops in the field tell us that they are being 
successful. They are making progress. This is no time to quit.
  The Al Anbar Province, where I and several Intelligence Committee 
members visited a few months ago, has been demonstrating tremendous 
signs of progress, even back then. This was the area controlled by al-
Qaida just a year ago, where al-Qaida said they were going to establish 
the headquarters of their evil empire, the Caliphate.
  In fact, today, General Jim Jones will be releasing his report that 
reached the same conclusion I did after my visit. You saw different 
headlines in the paper today about that report--not surprising. They 
wanted to focus on other sites. But today's Washington Post reported:

       U.S. and Iraqi alliances with Sunni tribal forces in Anbar 
     province have produced ``real and encouraging'' military 
     progress and intelligence cooperation, and there are 
     promising signs they can be replicated elsewhere.

  It is here, where local tribal leaders and sheiks are cooperating 
with American and Iraqi Army commanders to take their neighborhoods 
back from al-Qaida. As a result, we have seen a decrease in sectarian 
violence, an increase in weapons cache discoveries, and some relative 
stability.
  This is a classic example of how General Petraeus's counterinsurgency 
strategy, or COIN strategy, is working.
  We should have had this policy 2 or 3 years ago. But General Petraeus 
has written a book, the Army and Marine field manual. When he talks 
about dealing with the counterinsurgency, you go in, you clear, you 
hold, you work with local forces, and you help them rebuild. Show them 
that there is progress that can come when they cooperate with those of 
us who are trying to prevent violence and terrorism from taking over 
their country.
  When we were there, the marines in Ramadi had just finished 
rebuilding

[[Page 23738]]

the Blue Mosque, the sacred point for Sunnis in Al Anbar, and they are 
using that. We are working with them.
  Our military is beginning to replicate these successful lessons in 
other parts of Iraq. Sure progress is slow, but progress is real. With 
a new counterinsurgency strategy in place, our military shows the 
momentum going our way, and with this momentum it is clearly the wrong 
time to cut the legs out from under them with a new strategy. We are 
witnessing the increasing likelihood that our troops can find success 
and return home victorious. Even previous critics such as the Brookings 
Institution's O'Hanlon and Pollack, writing in the New York Times, said 
this is ``a war we just might win.'' But let me be very clear about one 
thing.
  Our U.S. national security interest is seeing relative peace and 
stability established and maintained in Iraq for the short and 
intermediate term because only by assuring that stability, and our 
coalition forces working with Iraqi security forces, can we ensure we 
will avoid the genocide among Shias and Sunni, the opening of Iraq to a 
safe haven for al-Qaida and its related terrorist elements, and the 
likelihood of a regionwide sectarian war, bringing in other countries 
in the region, creating havoc, chaos, threatening Israel, cutting off 
oil supplies, and having an international crisis.
  Long term, we have an interest in seeing real reconciliation and 
political accommodation accomplished by the elected officials of the 
Iraqi Government. Iraqis are going to have to make those decisions for 
themselves--who does it and how they do it--but we have to realize that 
before you can have political compromise and success, you have to have 
stability.
  Secondly, political reconciliation takes time. It took a long time to 
put the United States of America together. If you read, as I hope you 
have, the book about Lincoln's Presidency, ``A Team of Rivals,'' you 
see even in 1860-1864, we were still fighting those battles in a war at 
the same time, but Abraham Lincoln persevered and we came through.
  So not only as a policymaker but as a father concerned about our 
future generations, I understand the tremendous sacrifice our troops 
have made in support of a policy in Iraq. Our troops on the ground have 
told me, in many different ways, they understand they are making 
progress. They understand they are making these sacrifices; they are 
willing to do this for the good of our country. One particular quote 
sticks in my mind when they were first told about the possibility that 
Congress would set arbitrary time limits for withdrawal. Their response 
was: We have made far too many contributions and too many sacrifices to 
see it all be for naught.
  This coming from troops on the ground who have seen their colleagues 
shot up and sent the belongings of lost comrades back home. They made a 
contribution to the peace and security of the United States, and they 
do not want us pulling the rug out from under them.
  Let's remain committed to seeing the job done to protect this country 
from the radical and extremist attacks of al-Qaida and others. Our 
Nation's security, our credibility in the world, the freedom of 
millions of Iraqis and many other people threatened by this kind of 
terrorist attempt to establish a caliphate are depending upon us.
  I urge my colleagues to listen carefully and accept the 
recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, two men of 
unquestioned integrity who will be presenting the situation on the 
ground, not as we view it on TV, not as some mischaracterize it but 
from the people who have the responsibility for our missions, our 
vitally important missions, important not only for Iraq and the Middle 
East but to our own national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to follow on my distinguished 
colleague's remarks regarding the situation in Iraq.
  I had the opportunity to visit there a week ago today. I went to Iraq 
because I wanted to see for myself, on the ground, the conditions there 
in advance of General Petraeus's and Ambassador Crocker's report. I am 
happy to report I believe what I saw was significant military progress.
  My first stop on the visit was in Tikrit. I got a full briefing there 
of the conditions in this area, which was Saddam Hussein's birthplace, 
a place that was well known as a place of a lot of al-Qaida and Sunni 
insurgent activity.
  This area was under control. This area was moving in the right 
direction. Significant progress has been made in pacifying and bringing 
Tikrit to a better situation.
  I had a very interesting visit then to Patrol Base Murray. Patrol 
Base Murray is about 12 to 14 kilometers south of Baghdad by the Tigris 
River. It is an area that was totally controlled by al-Qaida a few 
weeks ago. Our brave men and women in uniform moved in as the last 
brigade of the surge. See, the surge began in the middle of February, I 
guess, but it did not conclude until the last brigade reported for 
duty, and that was in early June, late May. This brigade, the Stryker 
force, moved into this area under very difficult circumstances, and 
they have had a battle on their hands. But their commanders reported to 
us that under the most difficult of circumstances, they have made 
incredible progress, and that area is beginning to turn and turn 
dramatically. They are working with the locals. I spoke with an Iraqi 
gentleman who is cooperating and working with our forces there in 
trying to bring a normalcy of life to people who live in this part of 
Iraq and is making progress. It is working not without some losses, not 
without the grief of losing one of our valued soldiers and many 
casualties, but at the same time progress has been made.
  Under the most difficult of circumstances and intense heat, their 
morale is incredibly high. The fact is that by all measures, this is a 
successful outcome to this particular aspect of our surge. The surge is 
doing precisely what it was intended to do, to clear and sustain and 
work with the locals as partners. All of those things seem to be 
working as intended, as General Petraeus laid out.
  I had the opportunity to spend some time with General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Crocker to hear their assessment of the situation and hear 
some indication of what their report might yield. While we certainly 
need to allow them to speak for themselves when they come, I did get 
the definitive impression that the metric they utilized to sense and 
see whether, in fact, progress is being made, all seem to be moving in 
the right direction--not evenly, not without setbacks, but certainly 
significant progress is being made.
  The strategy has shifted dramatically. It so happened that as we were 
shifting our strategy, al-Qaida and their excesses had been more than 
the local Iraqi communities could stand, and so we have had a 
confluence of interests, as many Iraqi leaders and tribal leaders and 
provincial leaders have turned against al-Qaida, understanding the way 
of al-Qaida is not the way that would be best for the Iraqi people. So 
this is a good confluence. This confluence has brought about the kind 
of incredible results the Senator from Missouri was speaking of in Al 
Anbar Province. So I believe a political reconciliation is ultimately 
the only way in which this will be a successful outcome. But the 
conditions on the ground are beginning to be such so as to allow the 
kind of a peaceful country to then begin the difficult process of 
political reconciliation.
  There is no question that the Maliki Government has not delivered as 
hoped, but at the same time, some hopeful signs are beginning to 
emerge. There is no question the political progress lags behind the 
military progress. But I would expect it always would be so. The reason 
the military surge went ahead is so there could be the conditions for 
political progress.
  Over the last several weeks, there have been meetings that have 
resulted in the beginnings of what I believe to be the political 
accommodations that need to take place. I think particularly important 
are the debaathification law and also the law that would allow for

[[Page 23739]]

local and provincial elections. These will go a long way toward setting 
the stage for the kind of political reconciliation that ultimately will 
make Iraq a peaceful country.
  I wish to touch a moment on the report by General Jones on the 
conditions of the Iraqi military. I got a very positive assessment from 
General Petraeus. Their casualty rate is 3 to 1 to ours. They are 
taking the fight to the enemy, and they apparently are conducting 
themselves in stellar fashion.
  However, they do need our help and will continue to need our help. I 
think it is important we note, as General Jones reports, that while he 
sees progress by the Iraqi military, surely they are going to be 
needing our help in logistics and air cover and things such as that for 
some time to come.
  There is a big difference between them taking the brunt of the fight, 
which I think they are poised to do in the months to come, and still 
continuing to need the kind of backup and support that undoubtedly will 
take longer for them to build. It is a big difference for our military 
to be assisting in logistics than it is to be at the front of the 
battlefield. I think the Iraqis might be in a position to do so. I do 
not think there is any question that our goal is a successful Iraq, an 
Iraq that will not be a safe haven for al-Qaida, nor will it give Iran 
the kind of political control over this country that would be 
cataclysmic to the security and stability of the region. That is our 
goal.
  As a result of that goal being achieved, then we will be able to 
withdraw our troops. But the goal ought to not be troop withdrawal at 
all costs. That would be a mistake for our country. It would be a 
mistake for the region. I believe that while progress is difficult and 
the sacrifices are great, that enough progress is being made for us to 
understand the way forward is a way of continuing involvement there 
until such time as Iraq has reached the point of stability that they 
can govern themselves and also provide for their own security.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________