[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25124-25126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 
 
                                   IRAQ
 
   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
 from Massachusetts. I believe this matter is an important one. We have 
 troops in the field who are executing the policies we have asked them 
 to execute. We don't need to be using buzz words; we need to be talking 
 about truth and facts and trying to make the right decisions for our 
 country, and for the world for that matter.
   I detect fundamentally in the Senator's comments and from quite a 
 number of others that they believe, as the Senator said, ``there is no 
 real way out,'' and, in effect, we have a doomed policy that will not 
 be successful. Therefore, we should withdraw now. If that is the fact, 
 I would agree we should withdraw now. So that is why I think we need to 
 analyze this very point.
   Last fall, a lot of people were worried about what was happening in 
 Iraq. I certainly was. I visited Iraq in October. I visited Al Anbar. 
 It was a very troubling report we received from the marines. It caused 
 me great concern. Remarkably, Al Anbar region has shown, almost 
 overnight, tremendous progress.
   But let's go to the facts. The Congress asked General Jimmy Jones and 
 his commission in May to independently evaluate Iraq when we did the 
 funding for the surge. General Jimmy Jones's report dealt with the 
 fundamentals we are facing. I asked him did he believe it was 
 realistically possible that we could be successful in Iraq. And he 
 said: Yes, sir. I asked him did a single member of his 20-member 
 commission believe that we were doomed to failure in Iraq, and he 
 looked around and asked his commission members, and none of them said 
 that was their view. They all believed we had a realistic chance of 
 success. I asked General Petraeus did he believe we had a realistic 
 chance of success in Iraq, and he said, yes.
   So I guess what I would say is, some say we do not. I would say the 
 people--the generals who are leading the effort there--say we have a 
 realistic chance of success. The independent commission we sent over 
 there of 20 members unanimously believes we do. So I think we should 
 base our opinion on the best information we have. As for me, I have to 
 accept that.
   I also factor into that rather dramatic improvements in the reduction 
 of violence in Iraq, where within Baghdad we have seen a 70-percent 
 reduction of civilian deaths and a 55-percent reduction of civilian 
 deaths across the country of Iraq. That is very significant. It is a 
 product of many different things. It is a product of the new strategy 
 as well as the new troops we sent there.
   So I have to say to my friends and colleagues in the Senate: Yes, 
 this is a tough vote. Yes, we need to worry and agonize and think 
 carefully about the challenges we are now facing, and we need to make 
 rational decisions. Based on the information I have and the committee 
 hearings I have attended in Armed Services, my 6 visits to Iraq, I 
 think we should not precipitously withdraw. Well, they say, this is not 
 a precipitous withdrawal, it is a deadline, and that is going to make 
 the Iraqis do better. But it is not a deadline; it is a precipitous 
 withdrawal. I mean I just have to tell you, let's deal with facts.
   The Levin-Reed amendment says the Secretary of Defense shall commence 
 the reduction of the number of U.S. forces in Iraq not later than 90 
 days after the enactment of this act. And then it says: The Secretary 
 of Defense shall complete the transition of the U.S. forces to a 
 limited presence and missions by not later than 9 months after the 
 enactment of this date. So this is basically a 9-month mandated 
 withdrawal in Iraq, whether it creates instability and problems in 
 places and puts our soldiers at greater risk or not. Unrelated to the 
 facts on the ground, it is an absolute, mandated withdrawal.
   Now, if we were doomed to failure, maybe this is what we ought to do, 
 but I don't believe we are doomed to failure. I believe, as Senator 
 Lieberman said, there are a number of things that can cause us to feel 
 better, and General Petraeus has certainly infused our effort with more 
 leadership and effectiveness and purpose. His tactics utilizing 
 counterinsurgency principles seem to have made some real progress.
   For example, he told us he is embedding his soldiers with the local 
 people and the local forces to an extraordinary degree, compared to 
 what we have done before. As a matter of fact, I asked him about that. 
 I said: What are you doing differently? He seemed to, I have to say, 
 appreciate the question because he had been asked so many other things. 
 But he is doing things differently, and he explained some of the things 
 he is doing. We are embedding our soldiers with their soldiers. They 
 are living with them. They 
 
 
 [[Page 25125]]
 
 are in the neighborhoods. As a result, we 
 are receiving more information, and the number of caches of weapons 
 that have been seized so far this year put us on a pace to double the 
 number of weapons and munitions seizures that we have achieved this 
 year, doubling the previous rate. He said in his mind that may have 
 something to do with the fact that attacks have been down and the 
 number of IED attacks have dropped 37 percent. He didn't overpromise or 
 declare that. He said it might have something to do with that, that we 
 are obtaining twice as many caches of weapons and seizing those as a 
 direct result of more and better information from the people of Iraq.
   So I would also join my colleague, Senator McCain, who certainly 
 knows something about war firsthand, in concluding that the limited 
 presence mandated in this amendment, the Reed-Levin amendment, that 
 says that the mission of our forces that are left in Iraq can only be 
 for the following purposes: No. 1, protecting U.S. and coalition 
 personnel and infrastructure--base security, defending our bases--No. 
 2, training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi 
 security forces; and No. 3, engaging in targeted--this is a legal 
 mandate--targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al-
 Qaida-affiliated groups, and other international terrorist 
 organizations. That is all they can do. As Senator McCain said, asking 
 this question: Are they going to wear T-shirts that say: I am an al-
 Qaida, I am a Shia, or a Sunni terrorist; I am a Baathist warrior, and 
 we can only shoot at those--use force against those who wear the al-
 Qaida T-shirts? This is not a practical, realistic directive to the 
 U.S. military. We are not capable of deciding how to deploy the forces 
 we have there. We are just not capable. This is a bunch of 
 politicians--that is all we are--doing our best effort to serve the 
 people. We don't have to be bound--I certainly agree--by a report from 
 a general or the President.
   We can act if we choose to act. But we need to ask ourselves, are we 
 going to dismiss the testimony of our top generals and the independent 
 Jones commission about the progress that is being made and the 
 realistic chance of success that exists? In fact, I think it may be a 
 realistic fact that one reason Osama bin Laden is all over the 
 television apparently in the last few days is because he is getting 
 worried. The Sunni support area of Al Anbar in Iraq has turned against 
 him and his people, and they are fighting against him and have 
 devastated much of their capability in the Al Anbar region--a direct 
 change from what I was told last October when that was not occurring. 
 We are working with local police, local mayors, local tribal leaders, 
 and that is yielding progress to a degree we have not seen before in 
 Iraq. It appears to be a model that can lead us more successfully than 
 trying to meet with a bunch of politicians in downtown Baghdad and 
 trying to reach an accord that is going to affect something in Fallujah 
 or Samarra or Mosul. Washington, DC, can't affect Alabama or Nebraska 
 very well.
   But this country is not capable of issuing orders that can impact 
 successfully the daily lives in these provinces and small towns. That 
 is a product of the new nature of that Government and the lack of 
 maturity it has. So we are using different tactics that seem to be 
 working.
   Well, we have said our military is being damaged and our morale is 
 bad and we have real problems there. Certainly, we have had a 
 tremendous amount of our military personnel there, and they have 
 performed with the greatest professionalism. They are well trained, 
 well disciplined, well equipped, they know how to use the equipment 
 with which they have trained, and they are performing in a magnificent 
 way. They are at risk every day and they are doing their jobs 
 effectively.
   For example, a few days ago, a group came to visit my office from 
 Alabama. They were called Veterans for Freedom. It was made up of 
 Alabama Army National Guardsmen and Army Reservists. I had the honor of 
 being an Army Reservist for 10 years. I never served in combat, but I 
 am honored to have been one of them. These are citizen soldiers. They 
 recently returned from being mobilized in Iraq. These soldiers were all 
 senior noncommissioned officers. They had demobilized and were back at 
 their civilian jobs. They asked for a couple days off to visit the 
 offices of Alabama's congressional delegation. They had several 
 messages for me. The first message was: We have to win this battle.
   The group truly believes the contribution their unit had made in the 
 war effort was measurable and positive. One of the guardsmen had been 
 wounded in an IED attack early in the deployment. Thankfully, he was 
 not seriously wounded and he returned to duty. He noted that by the end 
 of the deployment, IEDs were no longer a threat in his area of 
 operation. The message was simply their service had made a difference.
   Another message to me was: We cannot afford to lose this fight by 
 simply giving up. I didn't make up that phrase--that a precipitous 
 withdrawal is equivalent to giving up. That is what four veterans of 
 Iraq told me they perceived we were considering doing. They urged us 
 not to do it. Certainly, Iraq cannot be another United States in a 
 short time, they told us. But it can become self-governing and self-
 sufficient.
   The group further stated it may be necessary for us to modify our 
 objectives in this fight, but please don't quit. The senior NCOs 
 finished by telling us they had at least one child, or spouse, on 
 active duty or serving as a reservist or Guard member. This was a 
 testimony--a form of saying to me they and their families believed in 
 what they were doing, even if it meant they have to go back to Iraq 
 again. After making this statement, they were quite polite. They 
 thanked my team for the time they had with us and the few minutes they 
 had to be heard. They came all the way up here to share that.
   I say that because I am not hearing the kind of talk from the people 
 who are in Iraq serving our country now that I am hearing from the 
 politicians in Congress. I am not hearing that.
   What about Jeff Emanuel, a former special operations veteran of Iraqi 
 Freedom? He wrote an article in the Washington Times recently. He 
 talked about the situation we find ourselves in today. The title of the 
 article is: ``Iraqis show courage. Can Congress do the same?''
   My colleague from Massachusetts, I think, was a bit too dismissive of 
 the challenges faced by the Iraqi military police and the Iraqi 
 leaders. They have a very difficult challenge, I admit that. I 
 certainly admit that. I think this Nation cannot pour resources into 
 Iraq if we reach the decision it cannot be successful. We will have to 
 extricate ourselves no matter what.
   But I have to tell you I don't see it that way right now. This is 
 what Mr. Emanuel said:
 
         . . . Iraqis in many locations have shown amazing courage, 
      not only by providing an ever-increasing amount of 
      information on insurgent activity to coalition forces, but 
      also by working to rebuild what the insurgents have 
      destroyed, as well as by putting their lives on the line to 
      drive terrorists out of their own villages. They do this 
      despite the fact that they do not know whether they will wake 
      up the next day to find that the coalition--currently their 
      best source of protection--has succumbed to the calls from 
      home (which are heard here by civilians and terrorists alike) 
      to leave Iraq, and has abandoned them.
 
   So they are hearing the talk here. It creates instability and 
 uncertainty for those who want to stand with us and help them to 
 prevail and create a good and decent government in Iraq, if they think 
 we may flee the country the next day. Mr. Emanuel says:
 
        In April and May of this year, and again from the beginning 
      of August through the present, I have been embedded [him 
      personally] in some of the most kinetic combat zones in Iraq, 
      observing General Petraeus's strategy from the ground level 
      in several different locations, and have seen clear evidence 
      of the strategy's effects on the situation there.
        I have personally observed clinics in which coalition 
      medics and doctors provided villagers with a level of care 
      that has long been unheard of in the country.
 
   He goes on to say this is still a broken and unstable country. That I 
 do 
 
 [[Page 25126]]
 
 
 not doubt. Yet progress is inarguably being made, he said. He goes 
 on to note this:
 
        A successful counterinsurgency is one thing, with a 
      timeline which is measured not in months, but in years. 
      However, to wage a successful counterinsurgency and then to 
      build a stable, autonomous and secure state, which we can 
      leave behind without risking its imminent collapse, is 
      another matter altogether.
 
   He went on to note we must not break faith with those who have stood 
 with us and made their commitment.
   We all are concerned about the situation in Iraq. The people I talk 
 to--the military people I talk to see us as having a realistic 
 possibility of helping to establish a decent government in Iraq--maybe 
 not the kind of democracy we would like to have seen but something that 
 can work, be a bulwark against an aggressive Iran and be a bulwark in a 
 hostile base against al-Qaida and the terrorists there, who could be an 
 ally to the United States. We have allies in the region. We have a base 
 in Qatar, Bahrain, and we have strong allies in Kuwait and other places 
 in the Middle East. We continue to have those and we will continue to 
 do so. But there is a danger, without a doubt, about an expansive Iran 
 and its leadership who seem to be disconnected from reality in many 
 different ways. Iran's President Ahmadi-Nejad declared a few days ago 
 that U.S. political influence was collapsing rapidly and said Tehran 
 was ready to help fill the power vacuum. He said:
 
        Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of 
      course, we are prepared to fill that gap.
 
   That is from the Philadelphia Inquirer of August 29. So the 
 consequences of what we are doing are serious.
   Let me address one more time a rapid precipitous withdrawal and what 
 it means as it is contained in the Levin-Reed amendment. Imagine you 
 are a military commander and you have 160,000 troops in Iraq. You are 
 told you have 9 months to withdraw everything but a token force to 
 train Iraqis and to protect your own bases and to chase individual al-
 Qaida members and those associated with them. We are talking about more 
 than a brigade of 5,500 troops a month having to be pulled out. When 
 you have an area of responsibility that has been assigned to a military 
 brigade and you draw those down, then somebody has to assume the 
 responsibility for that territory. How do you do that? That takes time, 
 planning, and care. You can get in a withdrawal or a situation that 
 costs lives and will completely destabilize any progress that has been 
 made. The military commanders have told us it cannot be done. You 
 cannot draw down more than a brigade a month. That is a too fast pace. 
 Remember, it is a brigade that has an area of responsibility of 
 interfacing with American and coalition forces all around it, plus it 
 interfaces with local police, mayors, and tribal leaders, plus it 
 interfaces with the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police.
   All of that is part of the responsibility and the relationship that 
 has built up. To precipitously pull out in 9 months all these forces 
 and draw them back to only a few bases and give them a limited 
 responsibility, is a huge, reckless idea that can only result in chaos, 
 confusion and unnecessary death and will destabilize Iraq, destabilize 
 the region perhaps, and cost more lives.
   Why don't we listen to what our fabulous general, General Petraeus, 
 has said? He said: I understand we need to draw down these troops. I 
 plan to draw down troops in Iraq. That is certainly my goal.
   I will say what I have said many times. The surge was a bitter pill 
 for me. I had certainly hoped that in 2006 we would be drawing down 
 troops, not having to increase troop levels. But that is what we voted 
 to do in this Congress by an 80-to-14 vote. We funded that surge, and 
 now we are getting a report on it.
   He said: I have had success by reducing violence in Baghdad and in 
 the country. I am not going to replace a Marine unit that will be 
 departing within a few weeks. That will reduce the numbers. I will 
 bring a brigade home before Christmas and that will be another 5,000-
 plus personnel. I will continue to draw down next year according to my 
 plan through the summer, and I believe I can achieve a 30,000 troop 
 reduction by next summer.
   He said: In March, I will report to the Congress again, and I will 
 tell you what further reductions we can achieve, and I hope to be able 
 to announce further reductions.
   That is the kind of withdrawal that is consistent with our ultimate 
 goal, to create a stable and decent Iraq in which the Iraqi Army and 
 the Iraqi police can assume more and more responsibility.
   To me, the stakes are so high, the challenges and threats so great 
 that we ought not be driven by polling data. We ought to ask ourselves: 
 What is right for America? What is right for our soldiers? If they are 
 pulled out and this country falls because we acted recklessly, there 
 are going to be more morale problems than we can imagine in the United 
 States military. There are going to be some angry people. They are 
 going to be very disappointed in the Congress. They put their necks on 
 the line because we asked them to. They lost friends and have wounded 
 friends in this conflict, and then we up and jump away and undermine 
 all that effort. It is not going to be pleasant, either.
   I say to my colleagues, I understand the purpose of this amendment. 
 It wants reduction in forces. It wants to see us less engaged in the 
 actual military operations in Iraq. We want to see more of that done by 
 the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi police, and that is what General Petraeus 
 wants. He has a plan to achieve that goal. This is a general who has 
 written a manual for the Department of Defense on how to defeat an 
 insurgency, a counterinsurgency manual. Let's give him that 
 opportunity. He is making progress so far. Let's do our duty and watch.
   We are not bound by everything General Petraeus says. We are not 
 bound by everything President Bush says. Yes, we are an independent 
 body. We have individual responsibilities to make up our own minds. But 
 if we do this, let's do it right. Let's don't be flip-flopping around. 
 That is not worthy of a great nation. We cannot send troops in one day 
 and jerk them out the next. Let's follow through in this difficult 
 period and see if we can achieve that realistic chance of success that 
 all 20 members of the Jones commission reported they believe is 
 possible and as General Petraeus has told us he believes is possible. I 
 believe it is the right thing for America to reject the Levin-Reed 
 amendment.
   Mr. President, I yield the floor.
 
                           ____________________