[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9135-9136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, recently I met with veterans in New Jersey, 
some of whom had served in the Second World War, and earlier in the day 
that I met with them, I had returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq 
with Representative Thompson of California, a colleague on the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  I told these veterans that they would not recognize this war in Iraq. 
From a technological standpoint, the kind of battlefield sensors and 
intelligence analysis capabilities available to our troops in Iraq are 
so far beyond anything that was fielded by the military in the Second 
World War or, in fact, even in more recent conflicts. That's the good 
news.
  The other thing that they would not recognize, the not-so-good news, 
is that unlike say the Second World War, the United States cannot 
control the outcome in Iraq or achieve success because we do not know 
who the enemy is and what constitutes success.
  While part of our trip involved classified briefings in which we 
examined how the intelligence community is supporting our troops, we 
also had the opportunity to meet at length with General David Petraeus 
and Ambassador Crocker to discuss the situation on the ground, 
including the status of the political reconciliation among Iraq's 
warring factions. The two gave a positive report and spoke of a great 
deal of progress.
  Two outstanding patriots, a good general, a good diplomat, but the 
presentation that America is making progress toward a successful 
outcome in Iraq makes sense only if we continually redefine what we 
mean by success. And for over 5 years, we've been redefining both our 
rationale for invading Iraq and how we propose to measure success.
  First, it was to go after those responsible for 9/11. Then it was to 
remove Saddam Hussein from power and track down his WMDs. And then it 
was to bring stability to the region. And then it was to bring free 
elections and bring all the warring factions together in a model of 
democracy for the Middle East. Then it was to create a road to peace in 
Israel through Iraq. And then it was to give the Iraqis more time to 
organize their government. Now, it seems to be to reduce the number of 
members of al Qaeda in Iraq, the AQI, which was, of course, zero before 
it all started.
  These repeated rationalizations and redefinitions serve no one's 
interests, particularly the interests of our men and women of our Armed 
Forces who we've sent in harm's way in Iraq.
  In Baghdad, I met with active duty soldiers, including some from New 
Jersey. American troops are performing superbly in Iraq under difficult 
conditions. As I told them, they, and the
New Jersey National Guard members who will be deploying later this 
year, deserve not just our gratitude, but all the support they need to 
do their job, the wherewithal they need to do their job, and I would 
say just as much support when they return home as veterans.
  Of course, we want our soldiers to succeed. We want the Iraqis to be 
peaceful and prosperous. We want terrorists and other enemies of the 
United States to be defanged and defeated. But for that to happen, it 
must be in Iraq, at least the Iraqis, the Iraqi political factions who 
must take the lead in ending their civil war.
  It's impossible to hide the fact that the limited security gains 
achieved since last fall have not been matched 


[[Page 9136]]


by political reconciliation on the part of the Iraqis.
  Unfortunately, Iraq's central government continues to lack legitimacy 
in the eyes of its people, as the recent combat in Basra and Baghdad 
have clearly shown. It is clear that the Iraqi government is, so far 
anyway, unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to reach a 
political settlement that will end the violence.
  One of the reasons I voted against the war resolution to go into Iraq 
in the first place was that Iraq was not a threat to the United States 
in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and that attacking Iraq would unleash 
forces we could not control. I was not alone in making those arguments, 
which tragically have been validated by events.
  My latest trip to Iraq has, sadly, reinforced my belief that success 
is being redefined only once again, and what we need to do is to take 
decisive action to end our combat involvement in Iraq and refocus our 
efforts on destroying al Qaeda and eliminating the conditions that 
breed international terrorism and refocusing our resources on pressing 
domestic and international needs.

                          ____________________