[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26390-26392]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, last week a group of us, both Senators 
and Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, had the 
opportunity to sit down with Frederick Kagan, who is a fellow at the 
American Enterprise Institute, and listen to his comments about where 
we are with respect to Iraq.
  At the end of that very illuminating session, he gave us each a copy 
of a new report that he has authored called ``No Middle Way, The 
Challenge of Exit Strategies from Iraq.'' The report is too long for me 
to ask consent that it be printed in the Record, but I recommend it to 
all my colleagues. It is one of the most thorough and thoughtful 
examinations of where we are in Iraq I have seen. I will be quoting 
from it, but I wish to make a few observations about the situation in 
Iraq before I do.
  The Iraq debate seems to be mired down in arguments about past 
decisions and whether they were right. These kinds of arguments are 
useful, and they are particularly useful in the hands of historians who 
are reviewing an entire situation from a vantage point of years 
afterward, but they are not necessarily that valuable as we are 
addressing the question of what do we do now.
  If I can play the historian for a moment and give examples of how we 
have entered into conflicts and seen the situation on the ground change 
and, therefore, strategies change, let me go back to the Revolutionary 
War. At the time of the Revolutionary War, the original strategies the 
Commander in Chief, George Washington, applied didn't work. Indeed, the 
Continental Army was defeated again and again and again by the British 
troops, and Washington was forced to acknowledge that his original 
strategic decisions were the wrong ones. This did not mean we lost the 
war because Washington adjusted to the conditions on the ground, 
adopted new strategies, and ended up winning the war.
  In the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln made the decision to provision 
Fort Sumter, he did not understand how long the war would last, how 
difficult it would be, how much life and treasure it would claim. He 
was forced to change again and again in reaction to the results that 
came from the battlefield.
  In Iraq, we made some decisions based on intelligence at the time 
which have proved to be wrong. Spending our time in this Chamber 
arguing over those decisions instead of recognizing how conditions have 
changed on the ground becomes a self-defeating exercise.
  As I look at the decisions that were made prior to the decision to go 
into Iraq, the one that strikes me as being the most significant was 
our failure to understand the degree to which Saddam Hussein had 
destroyed that country, not just physically, not just in terms of its 
infrastructure but psychologically.
  We believed there were Iraqis who could step forward and lead a 
resurgence of that country if we simply freed them from the heavy hand 
of Saddam Hussein. That was a false belief. We found Iraqis so 
shattered by 37 years of one of the most brutal dictatorships we have 
ever seen that the leadership vacuum was huge. For us now to spend our 
time saying, well, we made the mistake, therefore we have to cure the 
mistake by getting out, is to ignore the conditions on the ground that 
have evolved as a result of getting into the war in the first place.
  Mr. Kagan makes the point that there is no middle way. We are trying

[[Page 26391]]

to find a middle way in these Chambers. There are those who say the 
only way is to withdraw immediately, and there are others who say, no, 
the only way is to stay the course. That phrase has been hackneyed; it 
doesn't work anymore. So it is natural for many of us to say: Let's 
find some middle way. Let's stay in there somewhat, but let's eliminate 
a good portion of the American footprint in Iraq and see if that 
doesn't help us get out without absolute withdrawal.
  Mr. Kagan makes the point that the conditions on the ground rule out 
such a middle way. I find his arguments persuasive, and I would like to 
share some of them with my colleagues today.
  He looks not at the question of did Saddam Hussein have anything to 
do with 9/11, a question we hear debated a great deal. He says: Is al-
Qaida engaged now in Iraq? The answer is overwhelmingly yes. Whether 
al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein had any ties prior to our invasion in Iraq 
is now irrelevant. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. Al-Qaida is a major player in 
Iraq.
  There are those who say Iran is the major threat, and we should be 
looking at Iran. He points out that Iran is very much involved in Iraq 
at the present time. These are the conditions on the ground. We are not 
debating 9/11. We are not debating the U.N. resolutions. We are 
debating conditions on the ground that very much involve both al-Qaida 
and Iran. So those are the conditions to which we need to pay 
attention.
  If I may quote from Mr. Kagan's report, he says:

       A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq will likely be 
     portrayed in the region as a defeat for the United States and 
     as a victory for Iran. Arab states are already concerned 
     about the growth in Iranian power and pretensions in the 
     region, but few have the capability to do more than complain. 
     The Saudis and the Gulf states are no match for Iran 
     militarily and would almost certainly seek an accommodation 
     with Tehran rather than allowing themselves to be drawn into 
     a major confrontation.

  That is a very interesting thing to contemplate as you look ahead--
Iran expanding its power in the region, making some kind of 
accommodation with the Saudis and the other Gulf States in order to 
consolidate its power. Is that something America wants to look forward 
to?
  He goes on:

       A possible side effect of the U.S. withdrawal is the 
     establishment of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. Tehran 
     certainly seeks a predominant position in southern Iraq, 
     including Baghdad, and it would be in a position to put great 
     pressure on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States in the absence 
     of a large American presence in the region following a 
     visible U.S. defeat. That pressure might include efforts to 
     deny the U.S. the use of bases or to support Iranian 
     initiatives in the region and in the nuclear realm. The 
     perception of an American defeat at the hands of Iran is 
     likely to fuel seismic shifts in the politics of the Middle 
     East, none of them to our advantage.

  We are having a great debate about what to do about Iran. We are 
showing great concern about the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear 
weapon. The new President of France, Mr. Sarkozy, has talked about the 
unacceptability of Iran having a nuclear weapon, even to the point of 
suggesting that military options should be on the table. Military 
options with respect to an Iranian nuclear weapon, if it comes to that, 
will undoubtedly involve more American troops and more American 
treasure than are currently at stake in Iraq.
  In the conclusion section of Mr. Kagan's report, he says:

       It is simply not possible to design a militarily feasible 
     plan to draw down U.S. forces dramatically and on a rapid 
     timeline that still permits the accomplishment of America's 
     vital interests in Iraq and the region. The CNAS report--

  The report he discusses in the group that tries to find a middle 
way--

     has raised the extremely important question of devising a 
     sound plan for transitioning to an advisory role, and this 
     question deserves a great deal of careful study in the months 
     ahead. But now is the time to start thinking about that 
     transition, not to start implementing it prematurely.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Kagan concludes:

       Any plan that requires a withdrawal based on a timeline, 
     rather than conditions on the ground, is likely to lead to 
     failure. The notion that imposing timelines would somehow 
     force the Iraqi government to ``do the right thing'' and 
     thereby resolve the problems in the country is always 
     presented without any evidence. It is the logical argument 
     without substantiation that appears to be contradicted by 
     past precedent and by facts on the ground. It is a mirage 
     that some people cling to as a way of convincing themselves 
     and others that an action likely to lead to complete failure 
     in Iraq will instead lead to at least partial success. As the 
     president and Congress deliberate on the best way ahead for 
     the United States and Iraq, therefore, the choices are quite 
     stark. Either the United States can continue its efforts to 
     establish security while improving the capabilities of the 
     ISF or it can abandon those efforts, withdraw, and allow Iraq 
     to sink into chaos where terrorists can flourish.

  I urge all Members of the Senate to pay attention to the wisdom of 
Mr. Kagan's report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wished to, first of all, echo the comments 
of my colleague from Utah. Fred Kagan is an expert, and what he had to 
say in that report and in his subsequent summaries of it is something 
all our colleagues should be familiar with because he makes the very 
clear point that, as this mission is working, right now is not the time 
to change the mission and go back to what it was prior to General 
Petraeus's arrival on the scene.
  Yet we still have Members of this body and the other body trying to 
undercut the Petraeus plan in one way or another. The most recent 
effort to do this is one which is especially distressing. Let me give a 
little bit of background.
  First, I wish to note that our Democratic colleagues have not taken 
very long to reestablish their reputation--well deserved--as the tax-
and-spend party, as my colleague from Texas pointed out earlier. Now 
that the Democratic Party is in control of the Congress, the agenda is 
very clear. But yesterday, the chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee went a step too far because he proposed a new tax on every 
American. This one, ostensibly, to fund the war.
  Now, there are a lot of different excuses for raising taxes, as my 
colleague from Texas pointed out a while ago, but I don't think we need 
a new tax. If we did, our Democratic colleagues would not be proposing 
$23 billion in more spending than the President proposed in his budget. 
In other words, if a lack of revenue is the problem, then let us not 
keep spending more than has been proposed in the budget. The tax-and-
spend priorities of the Democratic majority are very clear.
  No, the real reason for Chairman Obey's plan to raise more taxes is 
to change our strategy in Iraq, and that is very clear from his own 
comments. Along with the tax he proposed, in fact, he announced he 
would not allow his committee to move forward with the bill the 
President has requested to fund the troops in Iraq.
  This is not the Defense authorization or Defense appropriations bill, 
which funds the Pentagon and all the military activities over the 
course of next year. No, this is the money for the troops who are 
fighting right now in Iraq. As I said, the chairman made it very clear 
that was precisely what he intended. In fact, quoting from a Wall 
Street Journal article today, he said:

       Choosing not to move legislation is our strongest card at 
     this point.

  Well, this is not a card game, and you shouldn't be playing with the 
lives of our troops by cutting off their funding while they are out in 
the field. If you wish to make a policy point that we should change our 
strategy in Iraq, change our mission, there are ways to do it without 
cutting off the funds while the troops are out there trying to perform 
the mission we have sent them to perform.
  I thought the comment of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, as reported in the Washington Times in a story this morning, 
was charitable and interesting.

       Senator Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican, said Mr. 
     Obey's threat to block war funds was pretty gutsy. But I 
     don't see how it would work. In the end, you have to feed the 
     soldiers.


[[Page 26392]]


  That is the point. You can cut back Pentagon funding, you can try to 
pass resolutions that call for a change in strategy, but at the end of 
the day, you have to feed the soldiers. You can't refuse to send the 
money to Iraq while the troops are there or you are literally pulling 
out the rug from under the troops.
  My colleague, Senator Graham from South Carolina, put it this way:

       The plan to starve the troops of funds would be cheered by 
     America's enemies. This would be a blessing to al-Qaida, 
     which is getting its brains beat out in Iraq.

  I remember when Bob Dole ran for the Presidency, and he was trying to 
make some pretty important points and people didn't appear to be 
listening to him. At 1 point, he said: Where is the outrage? And that 
is the question I ask here. Where is the outrage of pulling the rug out 
from under our troops while they are in theater trying to do what we 
have sent them there to do?
  This is not just bad policy, it represents a failure to support the 
troops. Everybody around here says: Well, we all support the troops, we 
disagree with the policy of being in Iraq. Now we have come to the 
point where we are going to try to change that policy by not supporting 
the troops? I don't think this is good policy. I don't think it is fair 
to the troops whom we have sent into harm's way, and it is consistent, 
as I said before, with this whole tax-and-spend ideology.
  Try to change policy by withdrawing support for the troops but raise 
taxes on the American taxpayer? It makes no sense at all, unless you 
put it in the context with where the Democratic leadership has been 
going now for some time with respect to the Iraq war. Let me go back a 
little and quote from an article yesterday in the Associated Press.

       Hoping the political landscape changes in coming months, 
     Democratic leaders say they will renew their fight when 
     Congress considers the money Bush wants in war funding.

  Well, it didn't take long for that to come true. The Associated Press 
noted:

       The difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They 
     lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and 
     are divided on whether to cut money for combat.

  I might say the Speaker of the House has already announced her 
opposition to this new tax plan. Democrats are indeed divided. But for 
those who are in authority to refuse to move the legislation forward, 
and who talk about it in terms of it is the best card I have to play, 
have the ability to stop the funding at the very time that the troops 
need the money in the field.
  Progress in Iraq, obviously, has been widely reported. An editorial 
today in Investors Business Daily says:

       The new strategy being implemented by General Petraeus 
     seems to have worked extraordinarily well. Al-Qaida has been 
     backpedaling furiously.

  So right at the time the strategy is working, we are going to pull 
the money out? It makes no sense.
  The Washington Post reports today:

       The numbers of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians reported 
     killed across the country last month fell to their lowest 
     levels in more than a year, a sharp decrease in violent 
     deaths that American military officials attribute in part to 
     the thousands of additional soldiers who have arrived here 
     this year.

  And the New York Times today notes:

       The number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq dropped 
     precipitously in September compared with the previous month.

  So at a time when the strategy of General Petraeus is working, our 
friends on the other side of the aisle are deciding to pull the funding 
so we can no longer continue the operation. That makes no sense at all. 
But it does fit in with this larger strategy, as I said, to find any 
way they can to change the course in the war.
  Let me conclude with this point. It is now October 3, past the 
beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, and yet the Democratic 
majority has not passed 1 single appropriations bill to the President 
for his signature to fund the government next year. It appears to me 
there is a reason for this.
  The Associated Press noted the following in an article on September 
30:

       The most basic job of Congress is to pass the bills that 
     pay the costs of running the government. After criticizing 
     the Republicans for falling down on the job last year, 
     Democrats are now the ones stumbling.

  And Roll Call had an editorial 3 days before, and I quote from part 
of it:

       Senate Democrats complain that Republican obstructionism 
     and President Bush's veto threats against nine House-passed 
     bills caused this year's delay. But the arguments don't hold 
     water.
       Instead, it appears likely that the Democrats' failure to 
     pass these spending bills is part of the plan designed to 
     create a giant Omnibus appropriations bill which will tie 
     very directly into their tax-and-spend policies.
  According to an editorial today in Congressional Quarterly:

       Democrats may be planning to use a widely supported 
     veterans' bill as the vehicle for their additional spending. 
     Frustrated veterans' groups are trying to pressure Congress 
     to quickly pass a veterans' and military construction bill 
     and not use it as a vehicle for an omnibus measure.

  Now, this wouldn't be the first time this kind of game has been 
played, but especially if it is on the Veterans and Military 
Construction bill, or if it is the Defense authorization bill that was 
held up for so long, and now the measure to try to fund the troops in 
Iraq, there is a very disturbing pattern here. Playing games with money 
for veterans and the military in order to get more taxes and spending? 
That is wrong. It is wrong. The American people need to know that at 
the very time when General Petraeus's strategy is showing very positive 
results in Iraq, it is the Democratic plan, at least in the House of 
Representatives, to hold up that funding, not because there is a lack 
of money, not because we need a tax increase to fund it but in order to 
try to change the course of the President's strategy.
  That is playing games with the money the troops need in the field. 
Again, as Senator Domenici said, it is a pretty gutsy move, but in the 
end, it would not work because you have to feed the soldiers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Nine minutes.
  Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Massachusetts 
would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________