[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 6062-6066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            PROGRESS IN IRAQ

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for weeks, I have been coming to the floor to 
discuss the signs of progress we are beginning to see as the military 
implements our new strategy in Iraq. Recent developments are 
encouraging. They include the following:
  First of all, the Iraqi Cabinet approved a national oil compact, 
which is the beginning of a resolution of what to do with the revenues 
that are produced from the oil that is produced in Iraq. It is a vital 
step in ensuring a united Iraq, and Prime Minister Maliki called it a 
``gift to all of the Iraqi people.'' This is expected to be approved by 
the Iraqi legislature this spring.
  Next is the capture recently of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of 
al-Qaida in Iraq, the successor to al-Zarqawi, in the western outskirts 
of Baghdad. This represents a continuing increase in the number of 
terrorist chiefs who have been killed or captured.
  Just last week, the Iraqi neighbors meeting was held. It generated a 
lot of press because both U.S. and Iranian representatives were 
present. It involved all 16 nations involved in the conflict. It was 
the neighbors of Iraq, as well as countries such as Great Britain and 
the United States. It was the largest meeting of foreign countries in 
Iraq since the summit meeting of the Arab League members in March of 
1990. There were working groups established to work on various problems 
all the countries had--for example, refugees from Iraq who have gone 
into Syria or Jordan. A special working group was created to try to 
deal with that issue.
  This represents a step forward, all of which illustrates the fact 
that not only is the new strategy being implemented a military one but 
it involves diplomatic and economic and political factors as well.
  It was interesting that the Prime Minister toured Baghdad to 
illustrate the security part of the new strategy that is beginning to 
work. He had been largely confined to the relatively safe Green Zone, 
as it is called, but on Sunday, he was able to go outside the wire to 
tour a power station, visit with police, and shake hands with ordinary 
Baghdad citizens. He attributed his newfound freedom of movement to the 
success of the Baghdad security plan, and he committed to redouble his 
efforts, saying: This operation will be accelerated at all levels in 
numbers and weaponry; we will not back down.
  You have also seen successes in places such as Sadr City, where it is 
pretty clear that the Shiite militias have decided to stand down and 
not contest the Iraqi and American forces.
  In fact, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will have printed in the 
Record two newspaper articles. One was written for the Washington Post 
on March 11, called ``The `Surge' is Succeeding,'' by Robert Kagan. 
While the leaders in Iraq are not yet willing to publicly say the surge 
is succeeding, clearly evidence of that is on the ground, and at least 
the media--journalists--are entitled to conclude from what is happening 
that it is succeeding.
  I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and was briefed by General 
Odierno and General Petraeus, as well as others. They all were 
cautiously optimistic

[[Page 6063]]

that things were looking better on the ground. They just wanted to 
caution that there would be good days and bad; that the enemy has a say 
in this and they will strike back, certainly, all they can. And if the 
administration were to claim too much in the way of success too early 
and there was some kind of event that resulted in a lot of violence, 
there might be a suggestion that the administration was trying to put 
too nice a gloss on it. So the administration is trying to downplay the 
successes. But the reality is that there is news of success.
  I think that makes all the more distressing and puzzling the effort 
by a lot of our colleagues not only to downplay the potential for 
success there but to develop strategies to undercut that success with 
resolutions that would micromanage the war from the Senate and, indeed, 
bind the hands of our commanders and our military as they begin to 
implement this program.
  It is hard for me to fathom the amount of time and energy that has 
been put into the development of these various resolutions--at last 
count, some 17 different resolutions--that would, in one way or 
another, criticize the President's plan or try to find some way to stop 
it from occurring.
  What is further puzzling and distressing is the degree to which this 
appears to be resulting from political considerations. Another one of 
the pieces I am going to ask to print in the Record is an article from 
March 12--that is today's Roll Call magazine--in which leaders on the 
Democratic side are quoted as referring to the political aspects of 
this strategy to try to get resolutions adopted.
  The article talks about the Democratic leader's ``abandoning efforts 
at crafting a bipartisan deal'' and ``instead look to directly tie 
Republicans to the unpopular conflict. . . .''
  The articles goes on to talk about ``the decision to ratchet up their 
partisan rhetoric''--``their'' meaning Democratic partisan rhetoric--by 
a resolution that sets ``specific dates for a mass redeployment of 
troops in Iraq and creating new restrictions on the war effort,'' and, 
indeed, that is what the latest resolution of the majority leader would 
do.
  But the article goes on to talk about this ``more aggressive push to 
tar vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008.'' That is not 
what we should be all about in debating the war in Iraq and designing 
solutions to ensure that war can be resolved successfully. It should 
not be about trying to tar vulnerable Members of the opposition party 
to diminish their reelection prospects in the year 2008.
  The chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee, the distinguished 
senior Senator from New York, has, according to this Roll Call article, 
``warned that Democrats would use the issue as a bludgeon on 
Republicans up for reelection next year,'' and they quote him as 
saying:

       The heat on these Republican Senators that are up in '08 is 
     tremendous.

  Adding:

      . . . this is a campaign . . . we are going to keep at [it].

  To me, that is an illustration of something very wrong with the 
Democratic Party's approach to this war. Reasonable people can differ 
about whether we should be there and how we should conduct the 
operations once there. But we ought to be able to agree that our 
responsibility is to provide the funding or to cut it off. The 
President's responsibility as Commander in Chief is to do his best to 
see that the mission is achieved. That is what we are sending the 
troops over there to do. That is what General Petraeus was sent there 
to do. He was confirmed unanimously by this body a month or so ago.
  When I was in Iraq, General Petraeus told us: Please see to it that 
we have what we need to fulfill our mission. Pass the supplemental 
appropriations bill to fund our effort and don't tie our hands with 
micromanagement from the Senate.
  This is the message from the person we sent over to do the job. It 
seems to me this would be the wrong time to pull the rug out from under 
him and pull the rug out from under the troops just as there are signs 
of success, as I discussed earlier.
  It is interesting, too, that there seem to be so many different 
approaches to this effort to criticize the President and his plan. I 
mentioned that at last count there are some 17 different resolutions. 
Somebody called it the ``Goldilocks'' strategy, with the Democratic 
leader searching for a solution that is neither too hot nor too cold. 
The real question is: In the House of Representatives, are they going 
to lose people on the left or the right or did they get it just right, 
with sufficient numbers of projects in the supplemental appropriations 
bill to appeal to those who may not like the end result with respect to 
the Iraq part of the resolution?
  Some have labeled it a ``slow bleed'' because it appears to be a 
solution that doesn't cut off all the funding for the troops at this 
moment but, rather, over time makes it impossible for us to succeed.
  The resolution, as I understand it, says we have to begin withdrawing 
our troops by a specific date and complete the withdrawal by another 
specific date. In the past, there has been a fairly good bipartisan 
consensus for the proposition that is the worst of all worlds, that you 
don't want to set a timetable for withdrawal because it gives the enemy 
precisely what they need to calibrate how long they have to hang in 
there until you are gone and then they can move in and take over and 
fill the vacuum. So it is a bad proposition, even apart from the 
political motivation behind it.
  It is worth, taking a look at some of the iterations.
  We started with S. 2, a nonbinding resolution, that it wasn't in the 
national interest of the United States to proceed. That was criticized 
as being nonbinding.
  Then we move on to S. Con. Res. 7 that expressed disagreement with 
the plan. That didn't have sufficient support, so that was replaced by 
S. 470, the Levin bill. It expressed disagreement with the strategy but 
in a form the President would be forced to veto.
  Then we moved on to the Reid-Pelosi proposal, S. 574. Not 
surprisingly, this approach had no more support than the others, and so 
we then moved on to the Biden-Levin proposal. That bill never even saw 
the light of day. It wasn't even debated.
  Now we are down to S. J. Res. 9, a nonbinding resolution encouraging 
the President to redeploy all, or almost all, of the troops by the end 
of 2008. This has been described as a goal, and yet the resolution 
itself provides that it is much more than that; that the troops would, 
in fact, have to begin being redeployed and be fully redeployed by the 
end of March of 2008. I don't think this resolution will pass either 
because, as I said, most people agree setting a timetable for 
withdrawal is absolutely the worst thing you want to do, even if you 
don't agree with the troops being there in the first place.
  As I said earlier, the amount of time and effort consumed in trying 
to craft the perfect Iraq resolution is difficult to square with all 
the other important business we have to do. The majority leader, the 
chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, and 
other important Members of this body have devoted hours and hours to 
making grammatical edits to this legislation, even though none of it is 
going to pass.
  Frankly, it is a good illustration of why wars should not be 
micromanaged by Congress. We are not good at conducting wars. That is 
why we have a Commander in Chief, that is why we have a Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, that is why we have our military commanders, such as General 
Petraeus, in whom we have placed a great deal of confidence, who have 
the experience to conduct these kinds of operations.
  I daresay, there are not many of us who have the experience of the 
distinguished Presiding Officer, and it is important for us not to be 
armchair quarterbacks when lives are on the line.
  Iraq is perhaps the most critical issue facing our country at the 
moment, and my comments are not meant to suggest that Iraq deserves 
anything less than a full and fair debate on the floor. It is one 
thing, however, to have

[[Page 6064]]

a debate and let each side make its position known and then vote on 
competing proposals. It is quite another to devote this kind of energy 
to attempts which appear to be purely political attempts to undercut 
the President and undercut the mission in Iraq.
  I believe the President has chosen a course that has the potential 
for success. That is why I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks 
some of the events which have been reported in the media that 
demonstrate early success. I, frankly, urge my colleagues to turn their 
energies to find ways to amplify these successes rather than to 
undercut them.
  It is interesting that Lee Hamilton, the chairman of the Baker-
Hamilton commission, who has been cited many times by Members on both 
sides of the aisle, in testimony before the Congress has been insistent 
that now that the President has laid out a plan, that strategy should 
have a chance to succeed, that we should give it a chance to succeed.
  By the way, even though the President at the time did not indicate 
what he would be doing specifically, since that report has come out, 
several of the recommendations have, in fact, been a part of what the 
administration strategy is following. For example, the strategy of 
meeting with people in the neighborhood is a followup on one of the 
Baker-Hamilton recommendations.
  I agree with cochairman Lee Hamilton that we should give the strategy 
in Iraq a chance to succeed and not undercut it at the very moment it 
appears there are early signs of success with a resolution which, as I 
said, there had been a bipartisan consensus for that we shouldn't be 
setting a timetable for withdrawal since that simply plays into enemy 
hands.
  The final document I will ask unanimous consent to be printed in the 
Record when I conclude is a piece from the L.A. Times, dated today, 
March 12. Headline: ``Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?'' It refers, of 
course, to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
who is supporting the plan that has been put forth in the House of 
Representatives by the Democratic leadership there. To quote from this 
L.A. Times.com piece:

       After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have 
     brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to 
     withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly 
     mess: Bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If 
     the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he 
     should.

  This comes from the Los Angeles Times, no particular friend of this 
administration. The Times goes on to say that this kind of 
micromanagement ``is the worst kind of congressional meddling in 
military strategy.''
  They go on to say:

       By interfering with the discretion of the commander in 
     chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic 
     political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects 
     remain of a successful outcome.

  Then they go on to criticize the Speaker and others for trying ``to 
micromanage the conflict . . . with arbitrary timetables and 
benchmarks.''
  Concluding:

       Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best 
     possible endgame to this very bad war.

  So a paper that does not like the war or support the administration 
generally, nevertheless, recognizes it should not be micromanaged from 
the Congress; that if there are any possibilities for it to succeed, we 
should be following those possibilities.
  To sum it up, I simply say this: There is a chance for this strategy 
to succeed. We should give it a chance to succeed. Early signs are 
positive. We should not try to micromanage the war from the Congress. 
Therefore, when these resolutions come before us, we should reject them 
and allow our military commanders the opportunity that we have asked 
them to engage in to bring a successful conclusion to this war.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 11, 2007]

                       The `Surge' Is Succeeding

                           (By Robert Kagan)

       A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the 
     Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in 
     Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers 
     have a backup plan in case it does.
       Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that 
     the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by 
     more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The 
     conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops 
     was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the 
     midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the 
     extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they 
     could not make a difference.
       Four months later, the once insurmountable political 
     opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are 
     flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible 
     acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that 
     the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of 
     new forces, is having a significant effect.
       Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers 
     Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight 
     talk, say that ``early signs are encouraging.'' The first 
     impact of the ``surge,'' they write, was psychological. Both 
     friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part 
     by the American media, that the United States was preparing 
     to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted 
     the dynamic.
       As the Fadhils report, ``Commanders and lieutenants of 
     various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad 
     and in some cases fled the country.'' The most prominent 
     leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi 
     Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and 
     Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish 
     themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.
       Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's 
     leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to 
     raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back 
     and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold 
     them. The Fadhils report, ``One difference between this and 
     earlier--failed--attempts to secure Baghdad is the 
     willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit 
     enough resources for enough time to make it work.'' In the 
     past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal 
     and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure 
     Baghdad ``is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the 
     day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better 
     implementation of the `clear and hold' strategy.'' Baghdadis 
     ``always want the `hold' part to materialize, and feel safe 
     when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining 
     their posts--the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the 
     troops are staying.''
       A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The 
     number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians 
     provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are 
     reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. 
     People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to 
     their homes. As a result, ``many Baghdadis feel hopeful again 
     about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being 
     replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this 
     city,'' the Fadhils report. ``This change in mood is 
     something huge by itself.''
       Apparently some American journalists see the difference. 
     NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in 
     Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the 
     airport more secure. The new American strategy of'' getting 
     out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a 
     toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the 
     locals--that is having an obvious and palpable effect.'' U.S. 
     soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and 
     pushed al-Qaeda back--a trend other observers have noted in 
     some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is 
     that ``the war has changed.''
       It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have 
     shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national 
     agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to 
     approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt 
     officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And 
     cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition--a 
     good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the 
     product and cause of growing sectarian violence.
       There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda 
     seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they 
     are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. 
     Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, 
     it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But 
     trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be 
     hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their 
     violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to 
     read in the New York Times that the United States plans to 
     keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the 
     beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if 
     the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk 
     again about drawing down forces.

[[Page 6065]]

       No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing 
     the ``good'' news. All they have to do is report what is 
     occurring, though it may conflict with their previous 
     judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise 
     that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a 
     new chapter in the story?
                                  ____


                    [From Roll Call, Mar. 12, 2007]

                         Reid To Attack on Iraq

                   (By John Stanton and Susan Davis)

       With the GOP maintaining a unified front against Democratic 
     efforts to end the Iraq War, Senate Majority Leader Harry 
     Reid (D-Nev.) and other party leaders are abandoning efforts 
     at crafting a bipartisan deal on the issue and will instead 
     look to directly tie Republicans to the unpopular conflict, 
     senior leadership aides said Friday.
       The decision to ratchet up their partisan rhetoric followed 
     Thursday's announcement of a joint resolution by House and 
     Senate Democrats setting specific dates for a mass 
     redeployment of troops in Iraq and creating new restrictions 
     on the war effort. Reid is expected to bring the resolution 
     to the floor this week following completion of the 9/11 bill, 
     aides said.
       According to Democratic leadership aides, Reid, Democratic 
     Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) 
     and other party leaders hope that a more aggressive push to 
     tar vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008 with 
     the prospect of an open-ended commitment to the war will 
     force enough defections to pass legislation forcing Bush to 
     begin bringing the war to an end.
       ``If they want to follow Bush over the cliff, that's fine 
     with us,'' one Democratic leadership aide said, adding that 
     Democrats will continue to push the issue between now and the 
     2008 elections in the hopes of eventually forcing a change in 
     the administration or Congressional Republicans.
       Saying Democratic Members ``are close to unanimity in both 
     Houses,'' Schumer accused Republicans of being torn between 
     ``their president who says 'stay the course,' and the 
     American people who demand change'' and warned that Democrats 
     would use the issue as a bludgeon on Republicans up for 
     reelection next year.
       ``The heat on these Republican Senators that are up in '08 
     is tremendous,'' Schumer maintained, adding that ``this is a 
     campaign . . . we are going to keep at'' until Reid has 
     enough GOP defections to pass a bill.
       According to leadership aides, Democrats have thus far 
     tried to walk a careful line of criticizing GOP opposition to 
     efforts to end the war while not being so harsh as to 
     alienate potential GOP allies. But over the past several 
     weeks ``it's become evident that Republicans have decided to 
     march in lockstep with the president'' and that, at least at 
     this point, a bipartisan solution is unlikely.
       As a result, Reid, Schumer and other leaders have decided 
     to pivot to a more confrontational--and partisan--approach 
     starting this week and will attempt to portray opposition to 
     the joint resolution as de facto support for Bush's war 
     plans.
       ``They have made a politically perilous decision to stand 
     with the president,'' a Democratic aide said, and Reid will 
     attempt to use Bush's low poll numbers and public concern 
     with the war to pressure Republican Members to break ranks.
       Senate Republicans, meanwhile, will continue to make the 
     case that Democrats are in disarray on the war and that any 
     efforts to bring about an end to the war amount to a 
     dangerous micromanaging of the war by Congress.
       One GOP leadership aide noted that despite early jitters 
     within the Conference, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-
     Ky.) has done an excellent job of keeping his Members 
     together and in reasserting Republicans' vaunted discipline. 
     ``Part of our strength in this debate has been staying on 
     message'' and not being dragged in to fights over specific 
     Democratic proposals or process questions, the aide said.
       But despite their successes in recent weeks, McConnell and 
     other Republicans acknowledge Iraq is a politically perilous 
     issue for them because of its unpopularity with voters.
       In an interview with Roll Call reporters and editors 
     Friday, McConnell said Democrats appear intent on keeping the 
     focus on the war, arguing that Democrats' success with the 
     issue in 2006 has convinced many in the new majority that it 
     is ``the gift that keeps on giving.''
       He also said that Senate Democrats appear intent on making 
     it a cornerstone of their 2008 campaign strategy. Pointing to 
     the fact that Democrats have proposed some 17 different Iraq 
     resolutions or bills since November, McConnell maintained 
     ``the best evidence of that is that they keep moving the goal 
     post'' on how they want to deal with Iraq.
       ``Would I like the election to be about something else? You 
     bet,'' McConnell said, arguing that Republicans would have 
     much better terrain in a fight over the economy.
       ``We are the economic engine of the world in many ways'' 
     but that fact has become lost in public concern over Iraq, 
     McConnell argued. Iraq has ``just put people in a kind of 
     funky mood,'' he lamented.
       But even McConnell--one of the White House's staunchest 
     supporters on the war--acknowledged that conditions on the 
     ground must change and that Iraq will need to demonstrate 
     improvements.
       ``This is the Iraqis' last chance to get it right. . . . 
     They need to show they can govern right now. Not next year. 
     Not this fall. Now. Right now,'' a clearly upset McConnell 
     said.
       Meanwhile, unburdened by having to craft their own policy 
     on funding the Iraq War, House Republicans appear to be 
     unified against the supplemental in its current form.
       ``There is nearly unanimous opposition in the Republican 
     Conference to any proposal that undermines the troops' 
     ability to fight and win the war on terror,'' said Brian 
     Kennedy, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-
     Ohio). ``Our Members are committed to sustaining a united 
     front against anything short of full and unqualified funding 
     for the troops.''
       The House Republican Conference held a special meeting 
     Friday morning to discuss the spending bill. Multiple Members 
     and aides in attendance said almost all of the chamber's 201 
     Republican lawmakers are prepared to take the potentially 
     risky vote against a war-funding bill.
       House Republican leaders are united in opposition, and 
     Appropriations ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) also 
     told the Conference he would vote against the measure.
       Much of the rank and file are looking to veteran Rep. Bill 
     Young (R-Fla.) for guidance on how to vote. Young is Rep. 
     John Murtha's (D-Pa.) counterpart on the Appropriations 
     subcommittee on Defense and the most senior Republican in the 
     House.
       Young told his colleagues Friday that he was--at that 
     point--prepared to vote against the measure. He said he was 
     reluctant to vote against any funding bill for the military, 
     but that the Democratic bill was unacceptable.
       However, Young left open the possibility that he could 
     ultimately support the bill if Democrats remove date specific 
     provisions on troop withdrawal. That appears unlikely, as 
     doing so would result in anti-war Democrats voting against 
     the bill.
       Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), a Vietnam War veteran and 
     former prisoner of war, gave the most stirring speech at 
     Conference, attendees said. ``He said, `We need to call this 
     what it is--a piece of crap,' '' recalled a GOP leadership 
     aide.
       House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) was unusually candid 
     in his whip count last week, stating that he expected all 
     Republicans who voted against the mid-February Iraq 
     resolution to oppose the supplemental, ``give or take one or 
     two.''
       There were 17 Republicans who voted with Democrats on that 
     resolution, and two Democrats who voted with Republicans. Of 
     those 17 Republicans, several already have indicated they are 
     likely to oppose the supplemental, including GOP Reps. Tom 
     Davis (Va.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Howard Coble (N.C.), and 
     GOP leaders are confident they can whittle that number into 
     the single digits if the underlying bill is not substantially 
     changed before it hits the House floor.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 12, 2007]

                    Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?

       After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have 
     brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to 
     withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly 
     mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If 
     the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he 
     should.
       It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of 
     disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed 
     timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the 
     continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower 
     had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in 
     scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President 
     Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War 
     the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional 
     meddling in military strategy.
       This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional 
     leverage--only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a 
     sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are 
     right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war 
     is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have 
     the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding 
     U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six 
     months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or 
     lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, 
     revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use 
     force against Iraq.
       But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still 
     hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective 
     in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid 
     can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't 
     be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be 
     harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace--if 
     Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the 
     president try this ``surge and leverage'' strategy.
       By interfering with the discretion of the commander in 
     chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic 
     political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects 
     remain

[[Page 6066]]

     of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy 
     Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, 
     and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables 
     and benchmarks.
       Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best 
     possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs 
     the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites 
     and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find 
     many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, 
     certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it 
     must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this 
     critical juncture.
       Bush's wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. 
     But he has made adjustments to his team, and there's little 
     doubt that a few hundred legislators do not a capable 
     commander in chief make. These aren't partisan judgments--we 
     also condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President 
     Clinton's conduct of military operations in the Balkans.
       Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the 
     essence of the choice the United States now faces--to stay or 
     go--and putting their money where their mouths are. But too 
     many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play 
     the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________