[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14641-14643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATIONS OF GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAYMOND 
                        T. ODIERNO TO BE GENERAL

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now

[[Page 14642]]

proceed to executive session and continue consideration of the 
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gen. David H. Petraeus, 
Department of the Army, to be general.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote no on the nomination of GEN 
David H. Petraeus, the current commander of the Multi-National Force--
Iraq, to be Commander, U.S. Central Command. I was unable to attend 
General Petraeus' nomination hearing before the Armed Services 
Committee because I was managing the supplemental appropriations bill 
on the Senate floor, but I reviewed his testimony. I also posed a 
number of questions to General Petraeus after the hearing, and studied 
his responses.
  I appreciate General Petraeus' evident intelligence and his expertise 
and experience in Iraq. He wrote the book on countering insurgencies 
for the Army. He led the 101st Airborne Division during the V Corps 
drive to Baghdad in 2003. He established the Multi-National Security 
Transition Command Iraq in 2004. He has served as Commander of the 
Multi-National Force--Iraq since January 2007. He is the architect of 
the so-called surge strategy that is even now being played out in Iraq.
  The surge strategy is, in fact, one of the reasons why I believe 
General Petraeus should remain in his current position as Commander of 
the Multi-National Force--Iraq. Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme 
Commander of the Allied Armies at the conclusion of World War I, 
observed in his 1920 book, ``Precepts and Judgments'', that ``Great 
results in war are due to the commander. History is therefore right in 
making generals responsible for victories--in which case they are 
glorified; and for defeats--in which case they are disgraced.'' The 
book is still out on the success or failure of the surge strategy. 
General Petraeus should bring it to its conclusion before he is 
rewarded with a promotion.
  Continuity of command has been a problem in Iraq. Historically, when 
the United States has been involved in protracted conflicts, continuity 
of command has been maintained, be it Generals Eisenhower or MacArthur 
during World War II, or General Westmoreland during the Vietnam 
conflict. General Petraeus has only been in his current position for 18 
months. Since President Bush believes that General Petraeus has done 
well in his current position, but he, Secretary Gates and General 
Petraeus have all described the security situation in Iraq as tenuous 
and reversible, it does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind 
behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved.
  Almost 1 year ago, on July 14, 2007, President Bush said in a radio 
address that, ``When America starts drawing down our forces in Iraq, it 
will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the 
ground are right--not because pollsters say it would be good 
politics.'' That strategy does not work well, however, when you keep 
changing commanders. No new commander is going to come in and say 
`reduce the troop levels on my watch,' because if, through their lack 
of familiarity with the conditions on the ground, they are wrong, that 
defeat would be their disgrace, just as Marshal Foch observed in 1920. 
So, a year after President Bush's statement, troop levels in Iraq are 
only just returning to something close to the pre-surge levels of 
January 2007, when General Petraeus assumed command in Iraq. If, as 
General Petraeus has said, no further decisions on additional drawdowns 
will be made until sometime in the fall of 2008, a new commander will 
be called upon to make that decision.
  I am also concerned about General Petraeus' unwillingness to address 
questions regarding other regional issues, such as in Afghanistan or 
Iran, during his nomination hearing. Such evasiveness is not politic; 
it is troubling at a time when news reports suggest that the Taliban is 
resurgent in Afghanistan and that President Bush may be contemplating 
military action against Iran. Despite the press of his responsibilities 
in Iraq, General Petraeus must be concerned with how other operations 
or other political considerations in the same theater affect his 
options in Iraq. Equally, he must consider how political changes in his 
chain of command might affect his operations in Iraq, yet he will not 
admit even the existence of contingency plans for potential troop 
drawdowns that might be required by a new administration. If the 
competing priorities for manpower and materiel are to be sorted out at 
the CENTCOM level, it must be done with a clear understanding of what 
is possible and what is achievable, by someone willing to take a stand 
in support of all the men and women who will be called upon to carry 
out those priorities, not by someone who only salutes and carries out 
orders or by someone who knows only a fraction of the full situation. 
General Petraeus' career will be judged in large part by his role in 
the Iraq conflict; his reticence to address other regional issues 
raises questions about his willingness to devote the focus and the 
resources needed to address them properly.
  Finally, the repeated rotations of U.S. soldiers to Iraq and 
Afghanistan are taking a toll on our military. Elements of the 4th 
Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, and the 
172nd Infantry Brigade are facing a third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are facing a fourth tour. With 
these repeated tours and the continuation of the ``stop loss'' policy 
of forcibly retaining troops on active duty in order to maintain unit 
integrity necessitated by the strain this war is placing on our forces, 
it is difficult to understand why these troops should not be entitled 
to a continuity of command. The troops appreciate the effectiveness of 
working together as a unit when confronting danger on a regular basis. 
They deserve a leadership corps that, like them, functions together as 
a unit and stay together.
  More than 12,000 servicemembers are currently affected by ``stop 
loss'' orders that prohibit them from retiring or leaving the service 
even though they are eligible for retirement or their terms of 
enlistment have expired. That total includes 6,800 active-duty Army 
personnel, about 3,800 Army National Guard personnel and almost 1,500 
Army Reservists who are not allowed to leave military service despite 
having fulfilled their service obligations.
  LTG James Thurman, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, 
has said that he hoped, but could not promise, that if the demand for 
troops stabilized at around 15 combat brigades, the use of the ``stop 
loss'' could be ended by the end of fiscal year 2009, or the beginning 
of fiscal year 2010--in September or October of 2009, more than a year 
from now. ``But demand exceeds supply right now,'' he stated. For the 
12,000 affected servicemembers, and those who will become eligible to 
retire or leave service between now and late 2009, this amounts to 
another 18 months of forced conscription. Until the practice of ``stop 
loss'' is ended, perhaps General Petraeus and other military leaders 
should remain in their current assignments until the U.S. can 
transition the responsibility for the security of Iraq to Iraqis.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 GEN David H. Petraeus to be general?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

[[Page 14643]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Byrd
     Harkin
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is, Will the Senate advise 
and consent to the nomination of Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno to be 
General?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Harkin
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, en bloc, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank all the Members of the Senate. We 
just had two historic votes. The men and women in the Armed Forces, 
particularly those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be greatly 
heartened to hear that the Senate has given the strongest possible 
advice and consent, each Member coming to the floor and casting their 
vote. I think it is a landmark situation and one which is respected and 
appreciated across our uniformed services and the many civilians who 
serve with them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is generally my policy to defer to 
Presidents on executive branch nominations. Accordingly, I voted to 
confirm the nominations of General Petraeus and Lieutenant General 
Odierno. However, I am concerned that General Petraeus has not always 
been forthright in his congressional testimony about matters such as 
the limitations of the Iraqi Security Forces and Iran's influence over 
the Iraqi government. I am also concerned that General Petraeus, as 
CENTCOM Commander, would continue to prioritize deployments to Iraq 
over Afghanistan, despite al-Qaida's safe haven along the Afghanistan 
border in Pakistan and its support for a resurgent Taliban. I look 
forward to a new administration that recognizes that the Iraq war is a 
distraction from our top national security priority--the global fight 
against al-Qaida and its affiliates.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate considered nominations 
for two very important positions that will affect how our country moves 
forward in Iraq and the Middle East. While I highly respect the service 
that these men have provided to their country, I do not believe that 
either General Petraeus or Lieutenant General Odierno will take the 
United States in the direction that we need, particularly in Iraq where 
we need a timetable for redeployment of United States forces so that 
our country can begin to more effectively address the very real threat 
posed by terrorists in other areas, such as Afghanistan, as well as 
around the globe.
  I believe that General Petraeus has been an unapologetic supporter of 
this misguided war in Iraq, continually toeing the administration's 
party line and failing to acknowledge many of the grave failings that 
have occurred. The military alone will not be able to stabilize Iraq, 
we must understand the political and diplomatic situation at hand, and 
I do not believe that under General Petraeus' leadership, the necessary 
reconciliation to allow the Iraqi Government to take control has 
occurred. General Petraeus has shown no willingness to take us in this 
new direction, and it is for this reason that cannot support his 
nomination.
  With respect to Lieutenant General Odierno, I believe that his past 
command of the 4th Infantry Division demonstrated what I consider to be 
serious flaws in judgment. General Odierno refused to characterize the 
insurgency that began after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime as 
anything that was serious and worthy of U.S. strategy shift. As we 
know, the failure to correctly assess the nature of the insurgency 
helped fuel years of violence in Iraq.
  We are long overdue for a new course in Iraq. The tragically 
overwhelming costs of this war in both lives and resources have 
distracted us from the initial task of fighting al-Qaida. It is time 
that we have leaders who will be able to independently assess our 
military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East rather than 
unquestionably support the failed policies of this administration.

                          ____________________