[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2407-2412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

   NOMINATION OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS TO BE GENERAL, 
                           UNITED STATES ARMY

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of David H. Petraeus to be 
General, United States Army.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 45 minutes of debate, with the time to be equally divided 
between the Senator from Michigan and the Republican leader or his 
designee.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to express 
my support for the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army, for 
appointment to the grade of General and assignment as Commander, 
Multinational Force--Iraq.
  General Petraeus is presently serving as Commanding General, U.S. 
Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the Army's leader 
development, professional military education, doctrine development, and 
lessons learned center. This is the place where the Army focuses its 
attention

[[Page 2408]]

and its greatest professional capabilities on developing leaders, on 
military education, on developing doctrine, and on learning the lessons 
from previous conflicts and challenges. As a matter of fact, the Army 
and Marine Corps' newly issued counterinsurgency manual was written 
under the command and guidance of General Petraeus at Leavenworth.
  General Petraeus had two previous tours of duty in Iraq. The first 
was in 2003 when he was Commanding General of the 101st Airborne 
Division, which was headquartered in Mosul, Iraq. General Petraeus' 
second tour in Iraq was from May 2004 to September 2005, when he was 
Commander, Multinational Security Transition Command--Iraq/Commander, 
NATO Training Mission--Iraq. In that capacity, he was responsible for 
the organizing, training, and equipping of Iraqi security forces.
  General Petraeus' nomination to become the Commander of Multinational 
Forces--Iraq may be the single most important command in the Nation's 
defense establishment. The Nation will entrust him with the operational 
command and the welfare of over 130,000 American service members who 
are presently in Iraq, and of those who may be deployed to Baghdad as 
part of the President's planned increase in the middle of a protracted 
and bloody sectarian battle over the future of Iraq.
  General Petraeus is professionally qualified for this command. He is 
widely recognized for the depth and breadth of his education, training, 
and operational experience. Noteworthy is his recent leadership of the 
new Army/Marine Corps manual. He testified that he believes the new 
military strategy for Iraq will work, and that the U.S. military forces 
under his command will be able to successfully accomplish their 
mission. We would not want a commander who did not believe in his 
mission and in the troops under his command. I pray he is correct.
  I am obviously very concerned over a strategy that relies on the 
Iraqis meeting their commitments when they have repeatedly failed to do 
so in the past. I am obviously concerned about a strategy which is 
based on an increased military presence, when expert after expert, 
including military commander after military commander, has told us 
there is no military solution in Iraq; that the only way to end the 
violence in Iraq is for the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.
  I am deeply concerned that this new strategy, I believe, is based on 
the wrong assumption--that there is a military solution to a sectarian 
war--when in fact the only solution to a sectarian conflict is for 
those groups to finally share power, share resources, including 
resolving the differences over autonomy that can end the violence. That 
is not just me saying that; that is also what the Iraqi President has 
said repeatedly--that it is the Iraqi political leaders' failure to 
reach a political settlement that is the cause of the continuing 
violence.
  That being the case, I don't believe--and I don't think a majority of 
this body believes--that an increase in troops going into the middle of 
the neighborhoods of Baghdad and staying there--``holding,'' as we 
say--is going to contribute to a successful conclusion of our presence 
in Iraq. It is not going to help the Iraqis succeed, to put our troops 
in their neighborhoods in the middle of the sectarian strife. We are 
going to add targets without adding to the essential need of the Iraqis 
to face a reality--to stare at their options, to look into an abyss--
civil war or one nation? That has to be their choice. We cannot make it 
for them. We can make it easier or harder for them to do it.
  The question is whether adding troops into that sectarian cauldron is 
going to contribute to their reaching a political solution or indeed 
will delay the day, as some of our commanders have said, when they will 
reach a political settlement. As a matter of fact, General Casey, the 
current commander, emphasized this point on January 2:
  The longer we in the U.S. continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's 
security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to make 
the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias.
  General Abizaid said the following:

       It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do the work.

  Then he said this:

       I believe that more American forces prevents the Iraqis 
     from doing more, from taking responsibility for their own 
     future.

  That is what General Abizaid said in November.
  So those are the expressions of our top military commanders who are 
there now. I believe they are right. But we need a commander in Iraq. 
General Casey is retiring. The question is not whether we agree with a 
particular strategy--and we will have an opportunity, hopefully next 
week, to vote on whether we agree with the increase of the American 
military presence as a way of pressuring the Iraqis or taking the heat 
off of their political leaders to reach a political solution. We will 
debate that issue.
  But we need a commander. We have a qualified commander who has been 
nominated. There are other issues General Petraeus is going to have to 
face. General Keane, yesterday, pointed this out. We had a hearing in 
front of the Armed Services Committee yesterday. General Keane was 
there, along with former Secretary of Defense Perry and Ambassador 
Ross. General Keane pointed out yesterday that we have a significant 
problem which is going to face General Petraeus in Baghdad other than 
the violence, other than inserting American forces into neighborhoods 
and trying to hold them with American forces, with an American face, 
with an American uniform. That is a big enough problem. But the command 
arrangements are such that U.S. and Iraqi forces are going to be 
operating side by side in those neighborhoods under two separate chains 
of command, violating the unity of command principle that is so 
ingrained in U.S. military doctrine and, indeed, is one of the key 
principles in that counterinsurgency manual which General Petraeus 
helped to create. He must have unity at the command. They must agree 
down there on those streets: Yes or no, are we going into that house or 
not?
  Now, who goes into that house is a critically important issue. Many 
of us don't believe it ought to be an American tip of the spear; that 
the Iraqi forces have been trained, 150,000 or more, to protect their 
country, and they should be the tip of the spear. That is one issue. 
There is a great dispute over that issue.
  That goes to the heart of the matter as to whether more American 
troops are going to help solve this problem. But it complicates the 
problem, it exacerbates the problem when you have two commanders on the 
ground side by side who have two different chains of command who may 
have two different opinions as to who ought to go into that house or 
whether that house ought to be entered. That has not been resolved. 
That is what General Petraeus is also going to have to face.
  General Keane, who is former Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, just 
yesterday expressed his strong concern about the command arrangements 
but said he was confident that General Petraeus had the ability to 
revise the arrangements so that there could be a unity of command. I 
hope he is right.
  It may be a superhuman task. It may be an impossible task. It is not 
a task which ought to face a commander. These issues ought to be worked 
out in advance of forces entering into combat situations. But they are 
not worked out. So General Petraeus has to figure that out as well as 
the major issues that he is going to face.
  Mr. President, did I yield myself a particular amount of time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan did not. 
The Senator from Michigan has 8 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, during his testimony at his confirmation hearing, 
General Petraeus volunteered to provide honest, straightforward reports 
to the Congress on a regular basis in recognition of Congress's 
oversight responsibilities. We are counting on him doing so. He may 
even report to us over a TV network, but he made a commitment. He

[[Page 2409]]

volunteered a commitment. This was not something we had to press him to 
do.
  He said: I am going to regularly report to Congress on whether this 
new strategy is working and whether these so-called benchmarks which 
the Iraqis have allegedly agreed to, representing their commitments--
when will they produce troops; will those troops, in fact, be subject 
to political pressure; will the Iraqis come through with the 
commitments relative to the financing of reconstruction? He is going to 
report to us on all the commitments which the Iraqis have made, all the 
benchmarks which are supposed to be met. I take him at his word. He is 
an honorable man, and that is an important representation, again, made 
at his initiative.
  I believe General Petraeus is highly qualified for his promotion to 
the grade of general and his assignment as our senior officer in Iraq 
at a very critical and dangerous time. That position needs to be 
filled. General Casey is retiring. I will vote for his nomination, and 
I urge our colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alabama will 
yield for one moment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to correct the record when I said 
General Casey was retiring. General Casey is being transferred to a 
different position and not retiring. I correct the record on that 
point. We still need General Petraeus to fill that position because of 
the shift in and the transfer of General Casey, but it is not a 
retirement.
  I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding so I could correct the 
record.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin, our chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee and our extraordinarily capable leader.
  Mr. President, I would like to be notified in 4 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. When 4 minutes remain?
  Mr. SESSIONS. No, after I have spoken for 4 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of points about 
General Petraeus. My colleague, Senator Bunning, who knows him 
personally from when he served in Kentucky--and has been with him in 
Iraq, as I have, will speak longer about him.
  I will just say this: General Petraeus was in Iraq in 2003 during the 
initial invasion. I met him there when I went on a codel. He impressed 
me, and all of us, as an extraordinary leader. He was commander of the 
101st Airborne. He is a Ranger and a combat officer. He finished at 
West Point at the top of his class. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He 
was No. 1 in his class at the Command and Staff General Officer School. 
By all accounts, he is a man of the most extraordinary ability.
  He came back to Iraq when we realized the training of the Iraqi 
military was not progressing effectively. So after he had hardly been 
home a year, the President asked him to go back to train the Iraqi 
military and police; for 15 months, he went back to Iraq, leaving his 
family again. Fortunately, his wife is a daughter of a military officer 
and understands our national interest and the lives of American 
soldiers are at stake.
  He went back to train those officers, and he did that, by all 
accounts, to an extraordinarily fine degree, given the difficulties 
that entailed. He got to know virtually all the leaders in Iraq. He 
doesn't know Prime Minister Maliki, but he knows all the leaders in 
Iraq. Then he came back, and his duties for the last year have been to 
prepare this manual, the military manual on counterinsurgency. That is 
exactly what we are in today, a counterinsurgency operation in Iraq.
  I believe we have the finest person this country has to offer to take 
a fresh look at the situation. I am an admirer of General Casey and 
General Abizaid. I think they worked their hearts out and did a lot of 
great things. I never believed they have done anything but a superb 
job, but sometimes, we need change and new people. I believe this is 
the best person we can send.
  General Petraeus promised, as Senator Levin said, which is critically 
important, in response to a question I asked, but he had volunteered it 
to me in a private conversation: Senator, if you want the truth, I will 
tell you. If you send me over there, I am going to tell you what I 
think.
  I said to him at the hearing: Will you tell the American people how 
this thing is going? And if it is not going effectively and we 
shouldn't continue, will you tell us?
  He said: Yes, sir, I will.
  I believed him when he said that. We cannot have a situation in which 
we end up 20 years from now with someone writing an autobiography and 
saying: I thought the war was lost. Yet I didn't say it at the time. We 
need somebody to tell us the truth. I believe he will do that.
  We need to support him. The whole infrastructure and bureaucracy of 
this Government needs to be responsible to the commander on the ground. 
We have a good Ambassador, but in Iraq where we have this much disorder 
and military threats, the commander is a leading factor. The people 
there respect him. We in the United States look to him to do much of 
the work, when much of it is actually being done by the Ambassador and 
other agencies of Government. But they need to respond to him because 
he understands the situation. We need to have adequate prisons and an 
adequate court system. If the soldiers go out and apprehend these 
people, where are they going to put them?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 4 minutes has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we need infrastructure, and we need 
trainers. General Keane was very positive about General Petraeus and 
said some important things about these needs. This manual deals in 
great depth with almost every issue raised by Senator Levin. So I 
believe in General Petraeus; we have the person best able to work 
through all the joint command and political issues, as well as the 
military.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not in any way want to interrupt the 
proceeding, but I wonder if I might be recognized, following the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, to address the nomination.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, it is my distinct honor to rise today and 
speak in support of the nomination of David Petraeus to become the 
commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. I am confident that with 
General Petraeus's experience, leadership skills, and judgment, he will 
prove to be an outstanding commander.
  I can speak from experience because General Petraeus is a personal 
friend of mine. Not only is he a friend of mine but also of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
  I met General Petraeus initially at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, but 
even more importantly, when I made a codel to Iraq in 2004 with former 
Senator Zell Miller, we spent some time with General Petraeus and the 
101st in Mosul. At that time, he was the commander of the 101st 
Airborne Division in Mosul. As many of my colleagues might know, the 
101st Air Force is based out of Fort Campbell, KY.
  While in Mosul, I had an opportunity to spend some time with General 
Petraeus and see his troops in action. What I saw was one of the most 
impressive military leaders I have ever met, and I have met a lot of 
them.
  In his 27 months in Iraq--27 months in Iraq--General Petraeus was 
asked to lead a division into battle, to oversee the reconstruction and 
governance of

[[Page 2410]]

Iraq's third largest city, and to build up from virtually nothing 
Iraq's army and police force.
  General Petraeus not only met all of these challenges, but he 
succeeded in showing them a unique type of flexibility and adaptability 
in his leadership. I believe this to be a very important skill that 
will serve him well in his new mission in Iraq.
  While in Iraq, I was able to see firsthand how this skill of 
adaptability transcends General Petraeus and was passed on to his 
troops serving under his command. It was soon after the fall of Saddam 
Hussein when the 101st Airborne Division got the orders to go to Mosul. 
They were charged with restarting the city's economy, getting civil 
institutions on their feet, and creating a working democracy.
  Under the command of General Petraeus, some officers supervised 
cement factories, others electricity generation. Soldiers who had 
studied military aviation tactics found themselves figuring out how to 
run a university, and an artillery officer was responsible for figuring 
out how to get the region's oil flowing again.
  General Petraeus himself even supervised the city's first elections, 
elections of Iraqis of very diverse backgrounds.
  How did he do all this? He did it through a partnership between the 
U.S. forces and the Iraqis, the exact type of partnership the President 
is calling for in his new way forward in Iraq. It is this type of 
forward thinking which will help our mission in Iraq to succeed.
  General Petraeus has also managed to earn the respect of the Iraqis, 
the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias. This type of working relationship of 
mutual respect is desperately needed at this time in Iraq. I recognize 
it, General Petraeus recognizes it, and so does the President of the 
United States.
  One of the key components in the President's new strategy in Iraq is 
creating a real partnership between U.S. forces and Iraqi forces where 
we would effectively train the Iraqis to secure their own neighborhoods 
and then act, the U.S. troops, as reserve reinforcements. Through this 
training and security, Iraq neighborhoods could once again begin to 
rebuild themselves, restoring vital services such as water and 
electricity to the Iraqi people. Eventually we can begin to restore 
peace to embattled neighborhoods in Baghdad.
  This is no easy task, and no one knows that better than General 
Petraeus. He has even admitted to it being a daunting task. But I am 
confident in his ability to lead. His service in Iraq has equipped him 
with expertise in irregular warfare and operations and a true 
understanding of the enemy we face.
  Like many of my colleagues here on the floor of the Senate, I, too, 
was initially skeptical of sending additional reinforcement troops to 
Iraq. But I am convinced that we have to allow General Petraeus the 
opportunity to succeed in this mission. In this effort, he has offered 
to provide Congress with regular reports on the status of his mission, 
on the performance and commitment particularly of the Iraqis to their 
promises. I, for one, would like to take General Petraeus up on his 
offer, and I am sure everyone in the Senate feels the same way.
  I believe it is vital that we keep up to date daily on the situation 
in Iraq as it changes so we can best help our new commander address the 
situation he faces. Judging how the Senate's Armed Services Committee 
unanimously voted him out of committee on Wednesday, I know I am not 
alone in my confidence in him.
  I urge my colleagues today to support General Petraeus's nomination. 
I wish him Godspeed in his mission and look forward to seeing the 
progress we can make in Iraq under his leadership as we continue to 
defeat the terrorists and to win this war against them.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I compliment my distinguished colleague 
for his remarks. I am proud to follow and likewise indicate my 
unqualified support for General Petraeus, to wish him well, and I hope 
he succeeds. We had a thorough hearing in the Armed Services Committee. 
I wish to compliment our new chairman, Senator Levin, and the ranking 
member, Senator McCain, for the speed and efficiency with which they 
managed to get this nomination before the Senate for confirmation.
  We have also pending resolutions to address the situation in Iraq, 
most specifically our new strategy. I simply say to our leadership, I 
hope we can address those resolutions at the earliest possible date 
because our forces are engaged in combat as we speak here this morning, 
and we certainly do not wish to have debate any way construed as less 
than full support for what they are endeavoring to achieve. We wish 
them well, and their beloved families here at home, in these perilous 
days.
  I have concurred steadily, steadfastly in the President's decision--
and it is an absolutely correct position. We cannot let Iraq fail, fail 
in the sense to lose the sovereignty they have gained through hard-
earned elections and the opportunity for this Nation to emerge as a 
constructive partner toward world peace. Therefore, we must press on. 
But I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to provide its views. The 
President specifically asked, if there were suggestions, forward them, 
speak them, and I and others, in a matter of clear conscience, have 
done just that. We shall see what evolves from the resolutions now 
pending and possibly other suggestions that could be brought forth by 
colleagues in the days to come in the Senate. I do once again urge that 
we address it as expeditiously as the joint leadership can determine.
  Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee had a hearing. We had the 
distinguished former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry; Ambassador Ross, 
who is a renowned expert on that region of the world, the Middle East; 
and the former Vice Chief of the U.S. Army, now retired, General Keane. 
It was excellent testimony. I wish to pick up on one thing General 
Keane addressed.
  I go back to the President's remarks when he spoke to the Nation on 
January 10. He said:

       Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The 
     Iraq government will appoint a military commander and two 
     deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government 
     will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across 
     Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully 
     deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police 
     brigades committed to the effort, along with local police. 
     These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations--
     conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-
     to-door to gain the trust of the Baghdad residents.
       This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our 
     commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will 
     change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their 
     campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to 
     the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American 
     force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional 
     American troops to Iraq. The vast majority--five brigades--
     will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside 
     Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops 
     will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and 
     secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local 
     population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left 
     behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad 
     needs.

  I say most respectfully, this poses a command structure, a dual one, 
of Iraqi commanders and U.S. commanders, which is unique. 
Traditionally, American forces operating in military campaigns have a 
unified command. There is the commander, and it goes right on down to 
the lieutenant, the head of the patrols, and the platoons. I think this 
will require further definition, further study.
  I bring to the attention of our distinguished nominee, General 
Petraeus, the testimony of General Keane yesterday where, in the course 
of a colloquy with me and I think Senator Levin and Senator McCain--
and, indeed, I remember the Senator from Rhode Island--we were quite 
concerned about how this unique command and control would work. General 
Keane concluded his testimony, in response to a question I posed, by 
urging General Petraeus early on to devote some attention to this 
question of how this sort of joint

[[Page 2411]]

command and control is going to operate.
  On the battlefield, decisions must be made in a matter of seconds, 
from the platoon level often right up the chain of command. We cannot 
have finger-pointing. We cannot have a mission where the Iraqi 
lieutenant says we should go left, the American embedded officer or 
whatever command America has in that situation says go right, and the 
mission not achieve its goal and then the finger-pointing as to which 
officer was correct and who was right and who was wrong. We cannot have 
that in this situation. It is going to be an extremely complex mission.
  Yes, I have put forward, along with other colleagues, recommendations 
of how possibly this operation could be conducted with few American 
forces, and specifically our resolution says the rules of engagement of 
the forces--that is standard military technology--should have some 
specificity, hopefully saying: Wherever possible, the Iraqis will bear 
the brunt of the sectarian violence. I am very concerned about the 
American GI being thrust in the middle of the violence that really has 
root causes that go back 1,000 years to the divisions of thought 
between Iraqis as to whether they are Sunnis or Shias. It seems to me 
that Iraqi forces who have the language capability, who understand the 
cultural differences, are far better qualified than the American GI to 
do this.
  Also, we have another document which was put out which explains the 
operations. It lists the President's priorities. It clearly says Iraqis 
will be in the lead and on the point. This is a White House document 
issued here in the last few days:

       The President's New Strategy is Rooted in Six Fundamental 
     Elements: Let the Iraqis take the lead.

  That has to be well defined and well understood. I commend the 
President for putting the emphasis on having the Iraqis do that.
  So I hope we can go about our debate in an orderly way at the 
earliest possible time. I urge Members to be cautious as we proceed. 
The feelings on this are quite intense, as they should be, because this 
is one of the most pivotal, one of the most important decisions I have 
seen come before this body in my now 29th year in the Senate. I hope we 
conduct it with sincerity and dignity and huge respect among colleagues 
with regard to our differences. I speak for myself and I think those 
other nine individuals who worked with me--Senator Bill Nelson, Senator 
Susan Collins--this is a truly bipartisan effort.
  Whatever we conclude here in the Senate, it is my fervent hope that 
it reflects a feeling of bipartisanship because therein is how best we 
can help the American public understand this complex situation, to give 
their public support. They are strongly behind the troops now. We want 
to get them to have a better understanding and a greater confidence in 
this new revised strategy going forward. This can best be achieved at 
the highest level of bipartisanship we can obtain here on these serious 
issues.
  I see the distinguished chairman here. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
GEN David Petraeus to be commander of American and allied forces in 
Iraq.
  General Petraeus has had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. 
Army. From the moment he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 
1974, General Petraeus has shown himself to be a dedicated officer and 
leader. He has held numerous leadership positions in the Army and has 
served throughout the world. Most recently, General Petraeus was the 
commander of the NATO training mission to Iraq and before that 
commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the first year of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, General Petraeus has earned MPA 
and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton 
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs 
and has received many awards and decorations including the 
Distinguished Service Medal and the Bronze Star for valor. Furthermore, 
he is widely regarded for having written the book on how to conduct 
counterinsurgency operations.
  I recently met with General Petraeus to discuss the current situation 
in Iraq and our need to achieve a stable and secure, self-governing 
Iraq. He is clearly aware of the difficult challenges that he will 
face. In our meeting and in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, General Petraeus clearly outlined what is at stake in Iraq 
and has convinced me that he is the best man to command Multi-national 
Force-Iraq at a most challenging time for the United States and the 
Iraqi Government.
  I have confidence in his pledge to me that he will openly and 
honestly tell Congress the situation on the ground as it unfolds and 
provide forthright advice regarding the new strategy in Iraq, and I am 
heartened by his commitment to the Armed Services Committee to provide 
periodic updates on the situation in Iraq.
  I have made clear to General Petraeus that I will support him, his 
efforts, and our troops in every way, but my support for the 
President's new strategy for Iraq is conditioned on seeing measurable 
progress by Iraqis in securing and reconstructing their country.
  Clearly, based upon his intellect and experience in Iraq and 
elsewhere, General Petraeus is an excellent choice to command American 
and allied forces in Iraq, and I support his nomination.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to support the 
nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus for promotion to General and 
Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq. I was pleased to join with my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to favorably report his 
nomination to the full Senate.
  General Petraeus has been commended by his superiors and policymakers 
alike for his ability to listen, to spend money wisely and use force 
intelligently in Iraq. He will bring to this new assignment his 
experience from back-to-back tours in Iraq. Most recently, General 
Petraeus authored the Army's new counterinsurgency manual. He is truly 
one of our most impressive Army leaders today.
  On January 10, the President articulated the strategy which General 
Petraeus will implement if confirmed to this important post. His 
mission will be to clear, hold and build. It will require the use of 
force, and negotiations alone won't complete this mission. I have 
serious doubts about this plan, especially the President's desire to 
send even more troops to Iraq.
  Because I feel so strongly that the situation in Iraq is 
deteriorating, I have joined with colleagues to draft a non-binding 
sense-of-Congress resolution, S. Con. Res. 4, to oppose the surge of 
troops into Baghdad. Senator Warner, Senator Collins and I believe this 
resolution avoids partisan rhetoric and provides the Senate a voice to 
express their disagreement with the President on his Iraq policy.
  Importantly, this resolution holds the Iraqis accountable and lets 
them know that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended. Our resolution 
emphasizes the Iraq Study Group's valuable recommendations and 
specifically says that our strategy in Iraq ``should be conditioned 
upon the Iraqi government's meeting benchmarks that must be specified 
by the Administration.''
  Along those lines, I hope General Petraeus will be vigorous in 
keeping Congress informed of progress he is making in Iraq. We need to 
know what the benchmarks are on the military side of the ledger. We 
also need to know what is expected of the Iraqis. I hope it's much more 
than just showing up; the bar can't be that low. I don't want to 
bombard General Petraeus with paperwork--we want and need him in 
Baghdad neighborhoods restoring order--but it is vital that we know if 
the Iraqis are capable of sharing security responsibilities.
  During his office call last week, I told General Petraeus the 
expectations from Congress for his success are high, but the hopes of 
the American people are even higher. I feel that General

[[Page 2412]]

Petraeus wants nothing less than success in Iraq and I look forward to 
working with him in the coming months to meet the needs of the troops 
so they have the tools they need to complete this mission.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, unless there is someone else who wants to 
speak, I have already spoken. I would ask, is the vote scheduled?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes. At the expiration of time, 6 
minutes 30 seconds, the vote will occur.
  Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on this 
side, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of LTG. David H. Petraeus to be General, United States Army? On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are absent on official business.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Alaska 
(Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from 
Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Lott), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) would have voted 
``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Ex.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Craig
     Dorgan
     Graham
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     Roberts
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for LTG David H. Petraeus of the 
U.S. Army to be general and commander, Multi-National Forces--Iraq. He 
is a highly experienced individual with a long history of excellent and 
selfless service to this country. I believe he represents the high 
caliber and professionalism of our Nation's military, and I wish him 
well with an extremely difficult assignment.
  But while I am supporting his nomination, I in no way support the 
President's policies in Iraq. The President has made the wrong judgment 
about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent 
basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq, and now by pushing to 
put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
  The indefinite presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq will not 
fix that country's political problems. And as we have seen over the 
last few years, sending more troops will not provide the stability in 
Iraq that can only come from a political agreement. Congress must 
develop the courage to confront this President on what has become one 
of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our history.

                          ____________________