[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1673-1674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Michigan 
for 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, with regard to his concerns 
about the public debate in this body on the progress of the war against 
terrorism and, specifically, the role of the conflict in Iraq. I have 
to express some deep concern that on an issue so important to our 
national security, on the type of matter where we have historically 
said partisan differences should not extend beyond our shorelines, that 
we ought to try to work harder to find some solution to this problem 
for our country. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from New 
Hampshire: This is a matter of America's national interest and 
America's national security. That is our No. 1 responsibility. That 
ought to be our focus. We ought to focus on that like a laser and not 
be distracted by anything else.
  I have heard, in addition to nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions being offered, expressing disapproval of the President's 
proposed plan, suggestions this morning by the Senator from Illinois 
that he wants to put a cap on the number of troops that can be deployed 
in the battlefield. Perhaps there will be other efforts that come 
forward to try to one-up the other proposal, to micromanage the conduct 
of this very grave and serious matter which so directly affects our 
national security. While I disagree fundamentally that we ought to have 
any suggestion to our troops and to those who are in harm's way that we 
are going to undermine their efforts by cutting off funds to support 
our troops during a time of war or whether we are going to send 
nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions in a way that will only 
encourage our enemies and undermine our war effort, or whether we are 
going to try to micromanage the conduct of the war rather than to rely 
upon the senior military leadership who has advised the President and 
been so much a part of the proposal that the President has made, I 
think this is all extraordinarily premature.
  I hope if there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that we have 
a chance to be successful in Iraq. I know there are those who differ on 
what success would mean. The President has talked in impressive terms 
about his vision of establishing a democratic beachhead in Iraq in an 
area with too few democracies, because the fact is, democracies don't 
wage war against other democracies. It would be helpful to the long-
term stability of the Middle East if that were successful. But I hear 
people giving up on that vision and saying: Well, the most we can hope 
for is what the Iraq Study Group said, which is to provide an Iraq that 
can be sustained, governed, and defended by the Iraqi people.
  I would be satisfied at this time if we were able to accomplish that 
goal. I would hope that would be a goal we could all embrace. But I 
know there are two ways to fail in achieving that goal. One would be to 
give up and to have a precipitous withdrawal of our troops or to cut 
off funds to support our troops now or to try to micromanage from 
Washington, DC, how many troops are in the field or under what 
circumstances, what the rules of engagement might be. The other way is 
to actually try to see whether the President's proposal demonstrates 
any improvement or progress in Iraq, which I would think we would all 
welcome, if, in fact, that happens. But of course, we can't guarantee 
that. No one knows whether that plan will be successful for sure. I do 
believe the President has attempted to get advice from the very best 
military minds available--people such as GEN David Petraeus, who 
hopefully will be confirmed here shortly to serve as the head of 
coalition forces in Iraq; people such as Admiral Fallon, who will take 
over as CENTCOM commander--while continuing to rely on the advice of 
people such as GEN George Casey and GEN John Abizaid, whom those two 
gentlemen will be succeeding.
  It strikes me as odd to say we are going to give up on this new plan, 
which many have clamored for months and maybe even years, before we 
have even had a chance to implement it. Indeed, the fact is we have had 
as many as 160,000 troops in Iraq at any given time, where now we have 
approximately 130,000. And even this so-called surge will not bring us 
up to the maximum number of troops we have had in Iraq at any given 
period of time.
  I think we ought to take a moment and think about what is being 
proposed here in terms of nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, 
attempts to micromanage the conduct of the war and the battlefield, 
because I truly believe if we are to allow Iraq to descend into a 
failed state, that it will, like Afghanistan did after the Soviet Union 
left, serve as a launching pad for terrorist organizations to train, 
recruit, and launch terrorist attacks to other parts of the world, 
including the United States, and that more American civilians will die 
as a result.
  Of course, there is also the issue of a regional conflict. We have 
already heard from people such as the Saudis that if, in fact, the 
Iranians take advantage of the Shiites' momentum in Iraq in that there 
is ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Iraq, that likely the Saudis will come 
in in an effort to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, and there 
will certainly be other countries drawn into what will be a regional 
conflict.
  It is not only responsible for the critics of the President's plan to 
say what they would do differently, but also to explain how they are 
going to deal with the consequences of a regional conflict in Iraq, 
should that happen. I do believe that is likely to happen unless we try 
to see whether the President's plan, in consultation with bipartisan 
groups such as the Iraq Study Group and in consultation with the very 
best military minds in the world, has a chance of success.
  I don't know of any American who would not support an effort to win 
and to stabilize Iraq, to provide a means for it to govern itself and 
defend itself if, in fact, that is in the best interest of the United 
States, which I believe it is.
  Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator allow me to interrupt for a request and 
I will ask unanimous consent that the interruption not show in his 
comments?
  Mr. CORNYN. I don't know what the interruption is for.
  Mr. KERRY. I want to make request to get into the order, if I could.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would prefer if the Senator wait until after I am 
through talking rather than interrupt my comments. I have no objection 
if he would like to be added to the end of the current unanimous 
consent request to be recognized after the Senator from Colorado. I ask 
unanimous consent that that be the case.

[[Page 1674]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________