[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24283-24285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TESTIMONY OF GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we live in a cynical age where the truth is 
often discarded because it does not meet the goals of an election 
campaign strategy or it is not what the core constituencies of certain 
political movements wish to hear.
  One does not need to look any further to prove this point than the 
media's portrayal of General Petraeus's testimony before Congress this 
week.
  Lost in the coverage were the hard facts and the veracity of the 
personal assessments of a remarkable leader. He has spent years in 
Iraq, first, as the commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the 
initial race to Baghdad and then as the officer in charge of training 
the Iraqi Army. This was followed by his authorship of the ``Army-
Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual'' that was used as the basis for 
our current strategy, and now in his role as the commander of Multi-
National Forces--Iraq.
  This man deserves the plaudits and credit from all of us. Think about 
it. How many of us would spend years away from our wives, our families. 
The sacrifices of our men and women over there is remarkable. This man 
is one of the most remarkable.
  So let us lay aside the rhetoric and learn the truth outlined by this 
seasoned commander.
  Here are General Petraeus's own words:

       As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the 
     surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in 
     the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, 
     Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in 
     the security arena. Though improvements have been uneven 
     across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq 
     has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number 
     of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen 
     since June 2006. One reason for the decline in incidents is 
     that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows 
     to al-Qaida-Iraq.

  The general goes on to point out:

       Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-
     sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of 
     ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across 
     Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last 
     December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also 
     declined during this period, although the numbers in each of 
     the areas are still at troubling levels. Iraqi Security 
     Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of 
     the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about 
     the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In 
     general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and 
     fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the 
     lead in operations in many areas.

  These are the words of a trusted and very capable commander who was 
unanimously confirmed by the Senate. They are insightful, and they show 
that at long last, we are beginning to make significant progress in 
Iraq.
  I believe Churchill could have been talking about our current 
prospects in Iraq when he said:
  This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it 
is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
  Yet even before General Petraeus gave us his professional military 
opinion on the status of the war, some attempted to undermine the 
veracity of his analysis and, worse, the character of the General 
himself.
  Of course, I am speaking of the disgraceful actions of MoveOn.org and 
their now infamous advertisement. Before even having the opportunity to 
hear General Petraeus's analysis, this group stated that General 
Petraeus is a ``military man constantly at war with the facts.'' It 
claimed he was ``cooking the books.'' It asserted that his action is a 
betrayal of the American people.
  This is shameful.
  There is no need to read between the lines.
  There is no subtext here.
  The text is clear.
  MoveOn.org has called General Petraeus a liar.
  That is disgusting. It is beneath the dignity of decent and honorable 
people.
  According to this group, General Petraeus is injuring his country and 
endangering those under his command by lying about the progress in 
Iraq.
  Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General and 
anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits 
knows these are disgraceful and unwarranted allegations. However, there 
might be a silver lining to this libel. Now, all of America understands 
why MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots. These 
people are nuts. They don't care who they hurt. They don't care whom 
they smear. They don't care whom they libel. To them, politics is more 
important than anything else, and the accumulation of power is most 
important of all. Perhaps if they rejoined the reality-based policy 
community, they would have actually waited to hear the General's 
analysis before criticizing it.
  Here is the reality.
  General Petraeus is a consummate professional. He is a man who has 
dedicated his life to our country.
  And I would note that when you put on a uniform, dedicating your life 
to your country has the potential to mean a good deal more than running 
for Congress.
  But to Moveon.org, which has sadly become a core participant in the 
Democratic party's policymaking, General Petraeus is a disgrace to the 
uniform.
  Let me be clear. It is MoveOn.org that is the disgrace. And I think 
it is important that the entire Congress publicly repudiate these 
absurd charges. I hope those in this body who are fond of listening to 
and following MoveOn.org's misguided policies see this group for what 
it is--an American embarrassment.
  I have been very interested in watching the debates both on the 
Republican side and on the Democratic side. I have been impressed with 
the candidates for President. There is no question. They are decent and 
honorable people. But they ought to decry this. They should start by 
demanding that people within their party start acting responsibly. The 
same applies to Republicans. If we have people who are doing 
disgraceful, offensive things such as MoveOn.org, we ought to rise out 
of our seats and condemn them. I believe good people in both parties 
will do that. But thus far, there has been a silence on these issues, 
especially when it comes to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
  What was particularly galling about the inaccuracies of MoveOn.org's 
comments is that many Members of Congress have been to Iraq in the 
previous few months and have seen with their own eyes the progress that 
is being made. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to 
share with my colleagues some of the experiences I had during a trip I 
made to Iraq a few months ago with Senator Smith and one of the great 
Congresswomen in the House, Congresswoman Harman.
  As part of my preparation for this trip, I read with great interest 
the articles written by Michael Fumento and published in the Weekly 
Standard about the time he was embedded with U.S. forces in Ramadi.
  Mr. Fumento wrote as recently as 8 months ago that our forces in 
Ramadi, described the time between when they went out on patrol and 
when they were attacked as the 45-minute rule. Under this rule, our 
forces hypothesized that it took the enemy 15 minutes to determine 
where an American patrol was

[[Page 24284]]

and then 30 minutes to organize an attack. Unfortunately, those attacks 
occurred with great frequency and severity.
  However, during my recent trip to Ramadi, I walked--admittedly in 
body armor and with a reasonably sized military escort--in 1 of its 
major markets in the heart of the city downtown. There, I saw what 
would be unimaginable a few months ago: Shopkeepers selling their 
goods, children playing, and urban life beginning to reemerge.
  How did this happen? First, the local tribal leaders made a decision 
that they would no longer tolerate the yoke of tyranny that had been 
placed upon them by al-Qaida--and make no mistake, al-Qaida is whom we 
are fighting in Ramadi. These leaders saw firsthand their fellow Sunni 
Muslims murdered and tortured under al-Qaida's false exploitation of a 
noble and peaceable religion. Not surprisingly, these sheiks began 
assisting coalition forces and, most importantly, their own Iraqi 
security forces in rooting out the terrorists. For example, once the 
local leaders decided to support the Coalition, 1,000 citizens of 
Ramadi joined the Iraqi security forces almost over night.
  The success I witnessed was attained due to the implementation of the 
new tactics articulated in General Petraeus's innovative 
counterinsurgency strategy. Under this plan, large areas of Ramadi were 
encircled and then, led by Iraqi security forces, a thorough search was 
conducted in each area. Once these searches were completed and al-Qaida 
rooted out, the progress was made permanent by placing Joint Security 
Stations throughout the newly cleared territory.
  These Joint Security Stations are one of the major reasons we have 
seen such advancement in Ramadi and other locations in Iraq. Joint 
Security Stations are manned by Iraqi Army and police forces as well as 
American forces who live in these installations in order to provide a 
permanent security presence for cleared neighborhoods.
  Joint Security Stations accomplish three vital goals. First, much 
like the local police officer in any city, the U.S. forces become 
intimately involved in the security of the enjoining population. 
Second, our soldiers also learn about the environment in which they are 
living and, therefore, can more readily adapt their operations to 
better achieve the goal of providing security for the local population. 
Third, our forces help to train and support the Iraqi units assigned to 
the Joint Security Stations. Ensuring the Iraqi forces have sufficient 
capabilities to independently provide security to their own population 
is, of course, 1 of the primary goals of General Petraeus's strategy.
  The implementation of the Joint Security Stations is radically 
different from previous tactics. In the past, U.S. forces would clear 
an area and then return to bases on the periphery of town and then move 
on to their next assignment. The predictable result was that shortly 
after the U.S. operation concluded, the insurgents would return to the 
area.
  No longer.
  Joint Security Stations provide continuous security to the local 
population. That is why the additional troops that were sent to Iraq as 
part of the surge are so important. It is not more for more's sake but 
to have sufficient forces to implement effective counterinsurgency 
strategies such as the Joint Security Stations.
  Fortunately, the success we are seeing in Al Anbar is being 
replicated in other locations throughout Iraq. In Baghdad, I was 
briefed by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as to the situation 
in that city. Here, too, I found that through the implementation of new 
strategies and tactics such as the Joint Security Stations, progress 
has been made.
  One of the early criticisms of the new strategy was the contention 
that, even if you secure Baghdad, the terrorists will move to the 
provinces such as Diyala in the north. In fact, the then-leader of al-
Qaida, Abu Zarqawi, was killed in Diyala in 2006. However, just as in 
Ramadi, the Iraqi local leaders decided they did not want to live under 
the tyranny of al-Qaida, and they joined with us in the effort to throw 
the terrorists out of the major Diyala city of Baqubah.
  However, what also made a lasting impression was the way in which 
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker worked together. There are no 
bureaucratic fiefdoms here. Far from it. In fact, as one watched the 
General and Ambassador finish one another's sentences, one was struck 
as to not only how integrated our new strategy is, but how each leader 
was searching to incorporate the other's department's strengths in 
order to achieve the well-defined goal of defeating the insurgency and 
creating an Iraq that could independently secure its own future.
  Now, does this mean victory in Iraq is imminent? Hardly.
  If one looks to history, counterinsurgency operations are successful 
only after a significant period of time. We have only recently 
developed and implemented our new strategy.
  So what are the other possible strategies?
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle recently supported 
the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would 
start the reduction of our forces in 120 days. Their legislation would 
only permit the forces to remain in Iraq that are necessary to protect 
U.S. and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip, and 
provide logistics support to the Iraqi security forces; and engage in 
targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, affiliated 
groups, and other terrorist organizations.
  Let's consider that strategy for a moment. Would that not mean that 
U.S. forces would be confined to large operating bases in order to 
protect Coalition infrastructure and support Iraqi forces--only 
venturing out to conduct raids against terrorists?
  Does this strategy sound familiar? It certainly does to me.
  The Levin-Reed plan reminds me of the failed Rumsfeld plan. Remember, 
under Rumsfeld's plan our forces were concentrated in large bases on 
the periphery of urban areas, only venturing into town to conduct raids 
and, as my colleague from Delaware often reminded us, conducting 
patrols where our forces would only speed through areas.
  That was a failed policy, not because it was not well implemented; it 
just did not work.
  Yet my colleagues on the other side are determined to repeat it. But 
this time we would proceed with even fewer troops, which we all know, 
and many of my Democratic friends continue to point out, was one of the 
reasons our initial strategy failed in the first place.
  Then there is the cost in human lives if the Democrats plan is 
implemented.
  As General Petraeus's testimony articulated, elements of the Iraqi 
security forces are making progress, but they continue to require 
strong support from Coalition forces. That training and support are, in 
part, being provided by the Joint Security Stations.
  But, if we are to leave precipitously, how many innocent people will 
be killed? Remember, it is al-Qaida that is a major instigator of the 
sectarian violence in Iraq. According to their adherents, their goal is 
simple: Join us, live by our strict rules, or be slaughtered.
  I understand the American people are discouraged by this war--but how 
will history judge us if we permit the wholesale slaughter of innocent 
civilians?
  If these arguments do not sway you, then let me ask a question about 
our own self-interest.
  What happens if Iraq becomes a failed state? Does anyone really 
believe al-Qaida would not use Iraq as a base of operations to conduct 
terrorist attacks against our homeland?
  Does anyone really believe that al-Qaida would not exploit the 
petroleum wealth of Iraq to further their objectives? Remember, in 
Afghanistan--a country of few natural resources--there were reports 
after the fall of Kabul that al-Qaida was working on chemical and 
biological weapons.
  I wonder what al-Qaida would buy with the billions of dollars it 
would accumulate if it controlled even a fraction of Iraq's oil wealth.
  Mr. President, we as Americans are known for asking ``what is the 
bottom line?''

[[Page 24285]]

  Here it is:
  We have made enormous mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq. So 
what do we do? Do we concede defeat, which is really what the Levin-
Reed amendment offers? Do we hope for the best, that al-Qaida will 
leave us in peace. Or do we follow the only sensible strategy that is 
beginning to show some signs of success?
  I believe we all know the sensible answer to that question.
  We must not yield.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________