[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6257-6258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 MORE COHERENT PLAN NEEDED FOR IRAQ WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 16, 2008

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, as a committee member I had the 
opportunity last week to hear first-hand the testimony of General David 
Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker when they appeared before the 
Armed Services Committee to update us on the status of America's 
military and diplomatic involvement in Iraq.
  There have been many comments on that testimony, but one of the best 
I have seen was a recent editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette.
  As the editorial noted, ``One of the more striking aspects of our 
unfortunate occupation of Iraq is an everchanging description of who 
`the enemy' is. At first it was the Saddam Hussein regime, and once 
that toppled it was covert regime loyalists. After a long period of 
denying that an insurgency had developed, insurgents became the enemy. 
Then it became al-Qaida in Iraq, although foreign and al-Qaida forces 
never made up more than about 10 percent of those fighting the U.S. 
occupation. Now it is `special teams,' presumably supported by Iran.''
  In addition, the editorial commented on the speech to the Nation in 
which President Bush announced that although tours of duty would be 
reduced to 12 months, for the foreseeable future the number of troops 
deployed in Iraq would remain at the same level as before the ``surge'' 
and on the president's description of the desired outcome in Iraq.
  The editorial's response was ``The president spoke in broad 
generalities of `a free Iraq that can protect its people, support 
itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs.' 
Beyond holding on and hoping, however, there was no sense of how to get 
there from here.''
  Madam Speaker, I think that sums it up very well. And, as one who 
opposed the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq, I also must 
concur with the editorial's statement that ``The length, cost and 
indecisiveness of this war should make Americans more skeptical the 
next time a political leader suggests war, against a country halfway 
around the world, without a clear objective.''
  For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the 
Gazette's editorial.

                   [From the Gazette, Apr. 13, 2008]

                      Iraq: No More Hold and Pray

       President Bush's speech Thursday, combined with the 
     congressional appearances this week by Gen. David Petraeus 
     and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, suggest strongly 
     that the U.S. strategy in Iraq until the end of this year is 
     ``hold on and pray.''
       Even the welcome news that Army combat tours will be 
     reduced from 15 months to 12

[[Page 6258]]

     months, no doubt welcome news to the top military chiefs who 
     have expressed concerns publicly and privately about the 
     military being ``hollowed out'' by the endless combat in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan, has a whiff of unseriousness about the 
     mission to it. Granted, as outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. 
     Richard Cody told the House Armed Services Committee on 
     Tuesday, the Army is ``out of balance'' because of the war. 
     But if the president had a coherent strategy for turning the 
     corner in Iraq, he might well have been willing to tolerate 
     that for a while.
       The president spoke in broad generalities of ``a free Iraq 
     that can protect its people, support itself economically, and 
     take charge of its own political affairs.'' Beyond holding on 
     and hoping, however, there was no sense of how to get there 
     from here.
       One of the more striking aspects of our unfortunate 
     occupation of Iraq is an ever-changing description of who 
     ``the enemy'' is. At first it was the Saddam Hussein regime, 
     and once that toppled it was covert regime loyalists. After a 
     long period of denying that an insurgency had developed, 
     insurgents became the enemy. Then it became al-Qaida in Iraq, 
     although foreign and al-Qaida forces never made up more than 
     about 10 percent of those fighting the U.S. occupation. Now 
     it is ``special teams,'' presumably supported by Iran.
       It's clear now: The longer we remain in Iraq the more 
     enemies we make. Imagine if the Chinese army were occupying 
     California. Opposition to that occupation would come from new 
     quarters every week.
       Perhaps the most encouraging development from this week's 
     hearings is the growing number of Republican lawmakers 
     beginning to question administration policy. ``The people of 
     the United States have paid an awful price,'' said Rep. Dana 
     Rohrabacher, R-Calif., noting that the Iraqi government had 
     budget surpluses. ``It's time for the Iraqis to pay that 
     price for their own protection.''
       Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Reps. Tom Tancredo 
     of Colorado, John McHugh of New York, Randy Forbes of 
     Virginia, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Steve Chabot of Ohio and 
     even Dan Burton of Indiana all expressed impatience with the 
     pace at which the Iraqi government is assuming 
     responsibility.
       Republicans may simply be distancing themselves from an 
     unpopular president as they face reelection bids in November. 
     Whatever the reasons, it is encouraging to see them express 
     the skepticism most Americans feel.
       The length, cost and indecisiveness of this war should make 
     Americans more skeptical the next time a political leader 
     suggests war, against a country halfway around the world, 
     without a clear objective.

                          ____________________