[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12707-12708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CHANGE IN IRAQ

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is no doubt that right now American 
families are being squeezed on all sides. Gas prices are sky high and 
climbing. The cost of food is going up. So is the cost of college 
tuition and health care. So it is no surprise that ``change'' is the 
word everyone is talking about.
  My colleagues on this side of the aisle and I want change, too, but 
we

[[Page 12708]]

want commonsense solutions. We are the party of economic security. We 
think we should keep more of the money we earn. We favor more private 
sector solutions to health care. We want America's energy future to be 
here in America, not the Middle East. We want to change the disastrous 
policy that has been implemented and kept by our fellow colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle for the last 30 years, a nonenergy policy, 
no production. As a Washington Post editorial pointed out today, 
Congress cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. Demand worldwide 
has gone up but supply has not.
  We have the answer to that problem right here in America. We want to 
change it and use the resources we have. We also want a strong 
commitment in the war on terror. Changing back to the policies of the 
1990s is not the way to win the war on terror. Senator Obama has said 
we should go back to the 9/11 days, when terrorism was treated as just 
another law enforcement matter. He pointed to the prosecution of the 
World Trade Center bombers as the example to follow. That is precisely 
the type of policy that led to attacks on American embassies and the 
USS Cole. That is the kind of change that will make the Nation less 
safe again.
  If the Democrats wish to talk about change, let's talk about change, 
change that matters and change that they have been unwilling to 
acknowledge, a change when we started executing the war on terror by 
going after the terrorists in the safe havens. We have kept our country 
safe from attack since 9/11. Under the leadership of GEN David 
Petraeus, Iraq has changed and changed dramatically. So why can't my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle change with it. Why can't 
they change their stance and get behind our service men and women who 
want to succeed and have had tremendous successes?
  President Bush announced the surge and the new counterinsurgency in 
2007. Iraq was a violent place at the time. Al-Qaida in Iraq held large 
swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad, and 
the Iraqi political leadership appeared helpless. So President Bush, 
understanding the consequences of failure and withdrawal, changed. He 
changed military leadership. General Petraeus changed to a new 
strategy, a strategy for victory, of counterinsurgency or COIN that 
involves getting out among the Iraqi people, working directly with 
Iraqis committed to a peaceful, stable Iraq. That is a change my son 
saw in Al Anbar, when his Marine scout sniper platoon helped clear Al 
Anbar and turn it over to Sunni citizens and police. We still face big 
challenges in Iraq but with a far more optimistic picture emerging. Al-
Qaida has been almost, if not completely, routed in Al Anbar, once 
declared the center and base of operations for al-Qaida in Iraq.
  On May 12 of this year, a prolific terrorist sympathizer by the name 
of Dir'a Limen Wehhed posted a study on the Internet in which he 
laments ``the dire situation that the mujaheddin find themselves in in 
Iraq.'' He is talking about his guys, the bad guys. He cites the steep 
drop in the number of insurgent operations conducted by various 
terrorist groups, most notably al-Qaida's 94 percent decline in 
operational ability over the last 12 months. In Sadr City, Iraqi 
forces, the forces of the Iraqi Shiite leader al-Maliki, have rolled 
through huge Shiite enclaves relatively unopposed. Iraqi forces did the 
same in April in the southern city of Basra, where the Iraqi Government 
advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers 
of the militias.
  When General Petraeus returned to Washington in September of last 
year, even at that time he reported that the number of violent 
incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings and car and suicide 
bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. But 
despite all this positive change, many on the other side of the aisle 
are too vested in political defeat to see it. In fact, most Democrats 
opposed the surge, claiming it is more of the same and would neither 
make a dent in the violence nor change the dynamics in Iraq. The 
Democratic leader proclaimed ``This war is lost'' and that U.S. troops 
should pack up and come home, a disastrous change that even many 
thoughtful scholars and commentators who opposed going into Iraq 
initially say now is not the way to go. It would be a disaster. General 
Petraeus returned again to Washington in April this year, and violence 
has been reduced further. American casualties have declined 
significantly. Al-Qaida was virtually eliminated in the northern city 
of Mosul, as verified by the terrorists themselves. There are more 
Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi Government has passed a variety of 
laws promoting reconciliation. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to 
demonstrate he can stand up to fellow Shiites supporting violence and 
Iranian-backed special groups. There is every reason to embrace the 
positive change we have seen and not abandon it and not force a 
withdrawal. For that is not change but, rather, a policy that would put 
Iraq back on the path toward violence, terrorism, and chaos.
  The change we have made has made our country safer, going after 
terrorists, helping Iraq stabilize their country, turning control over 
to them, and moving our forces back from the front lines of offense to 
a support role. That is the change we need to keep our country safe for 
the future from terrorist attacks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________