[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2675-2678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                IRAQ WAR

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first of all, I welcome this opportunity 
to talk about the current status of the involvement of the United 
States in Iraq. I am glad we are having this discussion. I start by 
thanking the troops for their incredible service to our country and the 
incredible work they are doing, and I think this Congress, by words and 
deeds, has shown its support for our troops. The budget we provided 
last year provides the resources to take care of our veterans and the 
funds to take care of our active military. That is what we should be 
doing.
  But we have now been in Iraq for many years. Several years ago I was 
in Iraq. I had a chance to visit our troops and take a look at what was 
happening on the ground. I saw then that we didn't have the right 
equipment there; that the administration had sent our troops without 
having the right support. I was proud of the action the Congress took 
in providing the military support and the type of equipment our troops 
needed.
  But the discussion of what is best for our troops is whether we have 
the right mission in Iraq. This campaign is now entering its sixth 
year. We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. We have 
now spent a half trillion dollars directly on our war in Iraq. Almost 
4,000 Americans have been killed, almost 30,000 have been wounded, 67 
Marylanders have given their lives, and over 800 have been injured. 
Many of these injuries are life changing.
  I have had a chance to visit Andrews Air Force Base as our wounded 
soldiers come home, and I have been able to see firsthand the type of 
injuries they sustained. They will have to deal with them for the rest 
of their lives.
  When we look at the strength of al-Qaida, our experts tell us they 
are stronger today than they have ever been. So we haven't accomplished 
our mission as far as dealing with the threat against the United 
States.
  Let's talk about the facts. The inescapable conclusion is that 
President Bush was wrong in sending our troops to Iraq in the first 
place. I am proud I voted against that authorization when I was in the 
other body. Our troops are involved in trying to referee a civil war. 
That is their primary focus. Yes, we are fighting terrorists, and we 
need to continue to do that, but the primary need for American troops 
is to deal with the civil unrest that is currently taking place in 
Iraq.
  The costs, as I explained before, in lives has been our deepest loss, 
but also the dollars--a half trillion dollars. Think about what we 
could have done with that money. I think about schools in Baltimore 
that should be replaced. We could have replaced every school with the 
money that has been spent so our children could get a proper education. 
We could have dealt with the energy crisis in this country and built 
the transit systems we need and become energy independent so we are not 
dependent on foreign oil in the Middle East. We could have done 
something about the health care system in this country.
  A year ago, Diamonte Driver died in Prince George's County, MD, 
because he couldn't get dental care. We are suffering an economic 
downturn right now because we have large debt, in part, and that debt 
is accumulating because we are not only spending a half trillion 
dollars, we are not paying for it. We are borrowing the money. It is 
making it even more dangerous for our economy.
  So I know there has been a lot of debate on this floor about whether 
the President's surge policy has worked. I must tell my colleagues, I 
think our soldiers are performing, as I said earlier, in a great 
manner. When you put American troops in a country, they are going to do 
their job and they are going to provide the type of help to that 
country and to its communities that American troops are trained to do. 
But the problem is the mission is wrong. The surge has not worked in 
accomplishing the U.S. mission that is in the best interests of this 
country.
  I remember when the President said: We are going to have the surge 
because we are going to provide stability in the country so the Iraqi 
Government can take control and we can bring our troops home. That was 
the mission. That is what we are trying to accomplish, but we haven't 
accomplished that. Let's look at the facts. Look at the facts.
  Violence in Iraq continues today. The majority leader mentioned the 
headlines in today's paper. Violence continues. It is a dangerous 
country. Suicide bombers operate at will. The troop levels were 
supposed to be reduced. In January of 2007 we had 130,000 American 
troops in Iraq. Today we have in excess of 140,000. There is now a 
pause in reducing our troop levels. We haven't been able to reduce the 
troop levels. On governance, on the Iraqi Government representing the 
people of Iraq, they set their own benchmarks. We didn't set them. Of 
18 benchmarks, only 3 have been accomplished. So, no, we haven't 
accomplished the mission the President established for why we needed 
our troops in Iraq.
  But let's take a look at our military and foreign policy experts. 
They tell us our military today is spread too thin, that we aren't 
looking after the best interests of America's military interests. Talk 
to our people who run our National Guard and Reserve units.
  I had a chance to meet with members of the Maryland National Guard. 
They have, again, answered the call. People of the Maryland National 
Guard have been deployed regularly into Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am 
told today we don't have the equipment in our National Guard to 
continue the proper training missions because the equipment was left in 
Iraq. We haven't replaced that. Also, recruitment is going to be more 
difficult, and we need to deal with the reintegration of the National 
Guard people who are coming back to Maryland in our community, and that 
is going to take a real effort. Now they have to be prepared for 
redeployment.
  We have lost our focus, according to our experts on the war against 
terror. We should have taken care of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We 
haven't done that. Now Afghanistan looks as if it is moving in the 
wrong direction because we are not focusing on the

[[Page 2676]]

threat, which is terrorism. Instead, we have our troops dealing with a 
civil war in Iraq. There is no disagreement among the foreign policy 
experts that America has lost its leadership internationally and is 
galvanizing the international community to help us in the war against 
terror. We have lost that focus. So our mission is wrong.
  The question, though, is where do we go from here. Well, if we want 
to follow President Bush's policy, we will have a permanent presence of 
American troops in Iraq. I think that is the wrong policy. I believe 
the people of Maryland and of this Nation believe it is the wrong 
policy. The President's policy is basically waiting out the burning out 
of the civil war. We know 4 million Iraqis are displaced, some in the 
country, some outside the country. That is not the right answer for the 
people of Iraq, and it is certainly not the right answer for U.S. 
policy.
  So we have an alternative. Senator Feingold has brought to us a bill 
which I believe warrants our support. It is the right mission for our 
troops and our Nation. Fighting terrorism, I am for that. That is what 
we should be doing. Protecting our troops, that is what we should be 
doing. Helping the Iraqis in the training of their own military, that 
is what we should be doing. It focuses our mission on what is in the 
best interests of the United States. We need a political solution, not 
a military solution, for the people of Iraq. The Feingold resolution 
acknowledges that.
  We need to work with the international community. We work best when 
we work with the international community. The international community 
is wondering what we are doing in Iraq.
  The Feingold bill does not place a time limit on the withdrawal of 
U.S. troops. It is an honorable and orderly process for us to complete 
a mission in Iraq. I believe it is in the best interests of the United 
States. I believe it is the right policy for our soldiers, and I 
believe it deserves the support of this body.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his excellent 
remarks and for his leadership on this issue. It has been very helpful 
during a very tough battle that we have to keep fighting.
  We had an interesting debate yesterday on the two bills I have 
offered with the majority leader. I know some of my colleagues 
expressed concern that we were spending too much time on this issue. 
Well I, for one, am pleased we are able to discuss one of the most 
pressing problems facing this country. Maybe now that they have allowed 
us to have this debate, the Republicans will allow us to actually 
consider and vote on these bills.
  While I appreciate the chance to have this debate, I would like to 
take this chance to respond to some of the statements that have been 
made on the other side. I have actually been accused of ``legislating 
defeat in Iraq'' or other variations on that theme, and somehow trying 
to micromanage the job of the commanders. Actually, we have already 
accomplished our military mission in Iraq: Removing Saddam Hussein. I 
am interested in achieving victory in the global effort to combat al-
Qaida. We have to make a choice. The Army Chief of Staff has been clear 
that ``the numbers of forces we have committed in Iraq now increases 
our level of strategic risk.''
  So what does that mean? It means we must choose between letting the 
Iraqi people resolve their sectarian disputes on their own or, on the 
other hand, exhausting our troops in Iraq and losing ground in the 
global fight against al-Qaida.
  Senator Inhofe said my bill demanding a strategy to defeat al-Qaida 
wasn't needed because we already have a plan to defeat al-Qaida. He 
failed to explain why, though. If we already have a strategy to defeat 
al-Qaida, why is it that al-Qaida has regenerated and reconstituted 
itself and is planning more attacks on our homeland? Admiral Mullen has 
been quite clear that under our current strategy, Afghanistan is a 
second priority where we only ``do what we can''--do what we can. In 
other words, we are so bogged down in Iraq, we don't have the forces to 
respond to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. If this is a 
strategy, it sure isn't working, which is why the majority leader and I 
want to require the administration to develop a plan that prioritizes 
the fight against al-Qaida and protecting ourselves at home over an 
endless war in Iraq.
  Senators Inhofe and Lieberman have claimed that we do already have 
political reconciliation in Iraq and that we have seen benchmark 
legislation in the Iraqi Parliament. Yes, a debaathification law has 
passed, an amnesty law has passed, and the provincial powers election 
power law passed. Yes, we have seen movement in the Iraqi Parliament 
after waiting for more than 4 years. It is my great hope that the laws 
recently passed will bring the Sunnis fully into the political process. 
But as we well know, passing a law is one thing, but actually seeing it 
successfully implemented is another, particularly given the country's 
weak national government.
  I think national reconciliation still looks far off. The passage of 
what the administration is calling ``benchmark'' laws does not ensure 
society-wide sectarian reconciliation. There are still significant 
concerns about how the local efforts we have supported to bring about 
declining violence will actually be integrated into the national 
framework. To illustrate this, the Sunni Awakening has taken tens of 
thousands of former insurgent Sunni militia fighters and provided them 
with U.S. funding in exchange for helping combat al-Qaida and Iraq. But 
to what extent we can rely on the long-term loyalties of these fighters 
is a very open question. We do know, however, that this policy actually 
risks increasing distrust between the local Sunnis and the national 
government, which of course is led primarily by Shiites.
  I would just like to ask, if Iraqis have agreed to political 
reconciliation, as Senator Inhofe suggested, well then doesn't that 
mean we have achieved the objectives of the surge and we can start 
bringing the troops home? When does the other side think we can bring 
the troops home? They never talk about that. Five years? Ten years? 
Twenty years? One hundred years? What kind of success is that?
  After more than 4 years of waiting for the Iraqi Government to make 
progress, we have lost nearly 4,000 Americans, with no end in sight and 
no clear path for a reconciliation that incorporates all aspects and 
elements of Iraqi society.
  Now, another argument we have heard is it has been suggested that 
Iraq would collapse or that genocide would occur if U.S. troops leave. 
Of course, that assumes our military presence there is actually helping 
the situation rather than simply postponing an inevitable day of 
reckoning. If we bring our troops out of this quagmire, Iraqis and 
their neighbors would have to confront the crisis head on. Now, I am 
not calling for the United States to abandon Iraq, but there is simply 
no way we can fix the mess we have made without a legitimate political 
settlement.
  A U.S. redeployment would actually put new pressure on Iraqis and on 
countries in the region to engage productively and to make the decision 
as to whether a full-fledged civil war is really in the interests of 
Iraq or its neighboring countries. I suspect--I really do feel strongly 
about this, having looked at this issue for many years in both the 
Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee--that if 
these countries were faced with that decision, they would actually try 
harder to reconcile their differences peacefully rather than further 
ignite tensions.
  Some Members of this body seem to believe the war in Iraq is between 
U.S. troops on the one side and al-Qaida on the other. That is not what 
is going on. In fact, that is dangerous, wishful thinking. The recent 
patterns of violence in Iraq actually confirm what the intelligence 
community has said all along: that the war in Iraq is sectarian and 
intrasectarian and far from the oversimplified ``us versus them'' that 
proponents of an endless military engagement in Iraq continue to 
describe. Moreover, in mixed areas such as

[[Page 2677]]

Mosul, violence is actually increasing. And in the south, the increased 
violence is among Shiites, and reduction in areas such as Anbar, which 
is almost entirely Sunni or in Baghdad, where sectarian cleansing has 
already occurred, do not represent a diminishment of the underlying 
tensions that could explode at any time.
  Contrary to what we heard yesterday, Iraq simply is not the central 
front on the war on terrorism. To the extent to which there is such a 
front in this very global conflict, it is clearly Pakistan and 
Afghanistan. No rational reading of press reports, independent studies 
or our own intelligence could possibly conclude otherwise. While the 
administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself 
along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That sounds like a big mistake. 
That sounds like a real strategic error in an international battle 
against terrorism. Yet far too many people in the administration and my 
colleagues somehow believe Iraq is what it is all about. What a 
terrible strategic mistake.
  Early this month, the DNI testified before Congress that the central 
leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-Qaida's most 
dangerous component. And a few months ago, the DNI again repeated the 
intelligence community's assessment that over the last 2 years ``Al 
Qaeda's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core 
operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland''--
in the homeland, our homeland, our country, the United States of 
America.
  The DNI also testified that al-Qaida ``is improving the last key 
aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: The identification, training, 
and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland''--in this 
country.
  Meanwhile, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas--or FATA region--
in Pakistan is serving as a staging ground for al-Qaida in support of 
the Taliban and providing it with a base similar to the one it used to 
have across the border in Afghanistan.
  Over the past year, as we all know, we have seen an unprecedented 
rise of suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining ground in 
Afghanistan, and while we may be sending an additional 3,200 marines to 
Afghanistan in the near future, we have been fighting for far too long 
there with too few soldiers and too few reconstruction funds. The price 
of that neglect is a dramatic resurgence of militants that must be 
urgently addressed.
  Yesterday, a Washington Post article noted that:

       More foreign soldiers and Afghan civilians died in Taliban-
     related fighting last year than in any year since U.S. and 
     coalition forces ousted the extremist Islamic militia, which 
     ruled most of the country, in 2001. Military officials expect 
     the coming year to be just as deadly, if not more so, as the 
     Taliban becomes more adept militarily and more formidable in 
     its deployment of suicide bombers and roadside explosives.

  With the Joint Chiefs saying: ``In Iraq we do what we must and in 
Afghanistan we do what we can,'' it is no wonder Afghanistan is 
teetering on the edge. It has been neglected, shoved to the back burner 
so the President can pursue an open-ended war in Iraq.
  I remind my colleagues it was from Afghanistan, not Iraq, that the 9/
11 attacks were planned, and it was under the Taliban regime, which is 
once again gaining ground, that al-Qaida was able to flourish so 
freely. This is the actual position, this is the actual situation in 
terms of this global fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. It is 
not all about Iraq.
  Al-Qaida affiliates from Africa to Southeast Asia pose a significant 
terrorist threat. While we have been so myopically fixated on Iraq, the 
threat from an al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa has grown and now, 
according again to the testimony of the Director of National 
Intelligence, ``represents a significant threat to the United States 
and European interests in the region.''
  Since its merger with al-Qaida in September 2006, it has expanded its 
targets to include the United States, United Nations, and other 
interests, and it likely got a further boost when al-Qaida leadership 
announced last November that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group united 
with al-Qaida under AQIM's leadership. Its possible reach covers 
Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, Libya, and other countries. 
Meanwhile, it is using deadly tactics that suggest it is acquiring 
knowledge and help from the war in Iraq, basically a training ground 
for those who get exported to attack us.
  Al-Qaida has affiliates around the world--in Saudi Arabia, United 
Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, where al-Qaida poses a ``growing 
threat,'' the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. And a few weeks ago, 
there were more arrests in Europe. None, not one of these developments 
has been prevented by the war in Iraq.
  We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-
Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with 
dangerous affiliates around the world. The administration claims al-
Qaida in Iraq may be on the run, but al-Qaida has not abandoned its 
efforts to fight us globally. In fact, we are watching al-Qaida 
strengthen and develop its affiliates around the world, while we remain 
bogged down in Iraq. How foolish can we be to allow them to 
reconstitute all over the world as they watch us unable to extricate 
ourselves from a mistake which was, of course, going into Iraq the way 
we did.
  We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction 
program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where al-
Qaida and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in 
Southeast Asia, and along the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and 
we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just 
rely on military power to get the job done.
  I would like to turn now briefly to the impact of the Iraq war on our 
military and National Guard. There is nobody in the Senate who cares 
more about this than the Presiding Officer. I will start by repeating 
what GEN George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said yesterday 
in congressional testimony:

       The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war 
     have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current 
     fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to 
     properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our 
     flexibility for an uncertain future.

  Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq, as we all know, are now in their 
third or fourth tours of duty. Approximately 95 percent of the Army 
National Guard's combat battalions and special operations units have 
been mobilized since 9/11.
  Mr. President, 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq and over 
420,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said 
before, nearly 4,000 of our men and women have been killed in Iraq, and 
over 27,000 have been wounded.
  The Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq 
without seriously damaging the military. Young officers are leaving the 
service at an alarming rate.
  Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since the Vietnam 
war. Every active Army brigade currently not deployed is unprepared to 
perform its wartime mission.
  More than two-thirds of Active Duty Army brigades are unready for 
missions because of manpower and equipment shortages, most of which, of 
course, can be attributed to Iraq.
  There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or 
crises around the world.
  This failure to prioritize correctly has left vital missions 
unattended. Natural disaster response, U.S. border security, and 
international efforts to combat al-Qaida are all suffering due to the 
strain on military forces caused by poor strategy and failed leadership 
in Iraq.
  In addition, thousands of our troops have, as we well know, returned 
home with invisible wounds, such as PTSD and TBI, traumatic brain 
injury, which will have a long-term impact on veterans and their 
families. These invisible wounds are not counted in the casualty 
numbers, but we will be struggling with them for generations.
  I haven't even touched on the massive debt we are running up to pay 
for this war. We are spending approximately $10 billion a month in 
Iraq.

[[Page 2678]]

Congress has appropriated over $525 billion for this war, and the debt 
keeps mounting.
  We heard eloquent floor statements yesterday on this side about how 
these costs are affecting our ability to address other priorities. I 
will not repeat all of what was said, but I do want to note that the 
war in Iraq keeps us from adequately addressing critical gaps in our 
homeland security and law enforcement. While we had 92,000 more troops 
to the Army and Marine Corps, the city of New York has 5,000 fewer 
police officers on the beat than it did on September 11, 2001.
  This year, we will spend a fifth of our $740 billion ``national 
security budget'' on Iraq, twice what the Federal Government spends 
defending our Nation. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut grants 
for first responders, and the Coast Guard is struggling with an 
inadequate force size.
  It doesn't make sense. It simply doesn't make sense. The American 
people know that, which is why they voted the way they did last 
November. More than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of a phased 
withdrawal. They don't want to pass this problem off to the next 
President and another Congress, and they sure don't want another 
American servicemember to die or lose a limb while elected 
representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of 
their constituents.
  Polls continue to show voters strongly oppose the war in Iraq, and 
that is one of the top issues on which they will be voting. A recent 
Washington Post/ABC poll found that 65 percent of Americans disapprove 
of the situation in Iraq and 56 percent disapprove strongly. The same 
poll also found this is the second most important issue to voters in 
November, behind the economy and jobs. And a recent Gallup poll showed 
a majority of Americans, 56 percent, do not believe the surge is 
working and want a timetable to get out of Iraq. Those Americans need 
to be heard, and that is what we are trying to do with this important 
debate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________