[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13025-13028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, yesterday, we learned from media reports 
the Obama administration has made a decision to sharply reduce the 
number of U.S. forces it is proposing for a post-2011 security 
agreement with Iraq to roughly 3,000 troops. That media report has not 
been contradicted yet by anyone in the administration, so one has to 
assume that is the direction which the administration is headed.
  As is well known, 3,000 troops is dramatically lower than what our 
military commanders have repeatedly told us, on multiple trips to Iraq, 
would be needed to support Iraq's stability and secure the mutual 
interests our two nations have sacrificed so much to achieve. Our 
military leaders on the ground in Iraq have told us, in order to 
achieve our goal--which is a stable, self-governing Iraq, and as a 
partner in fighting terrorism and extremism--they need a post-2011 
force presence that is significantly higher than 3,000 troops.
  We continue to hear that the Iraqis are to blame because they haven't 
asked for a new agreement. The fact is, in early August, Iraq's major 
political blocks reached agreement to begin negotiations with the 
United States on a new security agreement. This week, Massoud Barzani, 
the President of the Kurdistan regional government and one of the most 
respected men in Iraq--and, in my view, one of the finest--called for a 
continued presence of U.S. troops, saying Iraqi security forces are 
still not prepared to secure protection for Iraq.
  Perhaps significantly the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, 
Mr. Stuart Bowen, recently reported:

       Iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work. It 
     is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago. Buttressing 
     this conclusion is the fact that June was the deadliest month 
     for U.S. troops in more than 2 years.

  And, by the way, we continue to hear these quotes from various 
administration officials about absent a request from the Iraqis, it is 
difficult to settle on any one thing. Victoria Nuland stated that if 
they come forward with a request, we would consider it. That is 
assuming it is only in Iraq's national interests to have additional 
troops here. It is in America's national security interests not to lose 
Iraq after the sacrifice of some 4,500 brave young Americans, and the 
consequences of failure are obvious.
  Who is it that opposes the continued presence of the U.S. troops most 
vociferously, strenuously, and sometimes in a very subversive way? Iran 
and the Sadrists. Iran and the Sadrists want the United States out. It 
is not a matter of Iraqi national security interests, it is a matter of 
American national security interests.
  What do 3,000 troops do? I don't know what 3,000 troops do, but I 
know they are required to have certain force protection numbers, which 
would be significant, and then how many troops would be left to carry 
out the mission of protecting the United States civilians, contractors, 
and personnel who remain there.
  I guess you can sum this up, this decisionmaking process, best, and I 
quote from a New York Times article, ``Plan Would Keep Small Force in 
Iraq Past Deadline'':

       A senior American military officer said the planning at 
     this point seemed to be driven more by the troop numbers than 
     the missions they could accomplish, exactly the opposite of 
     how military planners ideally like to operate. ``I think we 
     are doing this thing backwards,'' the officer said. ``We 
     should be talking about what missions we want to do, and then 
     decide how many troops we will need.''

  I can assure my colleagues that is the view of the majority of 
members of the military, many of whom have had multiple tours in Iraq, 
that is their view of this process we are going through.
  I would point out that my friends Senator Graham and Senator 
Lieberman, who are coming--and I have been to Iraq on many occasions 
since the initial invasion. We have had the opportunity to watch the 
brave young Americans serve and sacrifice. We have had the ability to 
see as the initial military success deteriorated into a situation of 
chaos, beginning with the looting and unrest in Baghdad to very 
unfortunate decisions that were made in the early period after the 
victory in Iraq. And we watched. We watched the situation where many of 
our military leaders, but also those who are now in the administration, 
say that if we employed a surge, it would fail. The President of the 
United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary 
of State, the President's National Security Adviser, all of them said 
the surge would fail; it was doomed to failure.
  The fact is the surge succeeded. The fact is we now have an Iraq that 
has an opportunity to be a free and independent country, but, maybe 
more importantly, one that would never pose a threat to the United 
States of America and, most importantly, a chance for the Iraqi people 
to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifice that thousands and thousands and 
thousands of Iraqis have made on their behalf and approximately 4,500 
brave young Americans have.
  The Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Connecticut, and I 
recall meeting with military leaders in 2006, where we were told that 
everything was going fine. The Senator from Connecticut, the Senator 
from South Carolina, and I recall meeting with a British colonel in 
Basra who told us that unless we turned things around, we were doomed 
to failure. We remember the summer of 2007, when we were lonely voices, 
along with that of General Petraeus, General Odierno, and other great 
leaders who have been saying the surge could, and must, succeed.
  I will leave it up to historians to decide whether our venture into 
Iraq was a good one or a bad one, whether the sacrifice of young 
Americans' lives was worth it, whether a stable and democratic Iraq, 
which can be the result of our involvement there, was the right or 
wrong thing to do. But what we should not do, and in deference to those 
who have served and sacrificed we must not do, is make a decision which 
would put all of that sacrifice and all that was gained by it in 
jeopardy because of our failure to carry out the fundamental 
requirement of contributing to Iraqi security in this very difficult 
transition time.
  I would ask my friend from South Carolina, to start with, perhaps he 
remembers when we went to Baghdad, I believe it was 2007, and went 
downtown with General Petraeus and were mocked and made fun of in the 
media as I came back and said that things had improved in Iraq. Perhaps 
the Senator from South Carolina recalls when we had that almost 
triumphant visit in downtown Fallujah, a conflict that was won with 
great cost in American blood and treasure. Perhaps the Senator from 
South Carolina recalls going into downtown Baghdad and going to a 
bakery in an environment not of complete security but dramatically 
improved. All of it was purchased by the expenditure of America's most 
precious asset, young Americans' blood. And now we place all of that at 
great risk in the decisions, I say with respect, made by the same 
people who said the surge couldn't succeed.
  I urge the administration and the President to reconsider what 
apparently is a decision and listen to our military leaders once, and 
employ a sufficient number of troops to provide the Iraqis with--as 
Barzai said, a sufficient number of troops to secure. As Barzai said, 
Iraq security forces are still not prepared to secure protections for 
Iraq.
  I would ask my colleagues from South Carolina and Connecticut, aren't 
there plans for us to have a large amount of American civilians there, 
contractors, to protect them? Probably the most expensive form that we 
could do rather than American troops. Is it not a flawed strategy to 
not have enough American troops there to ensure that the lives of 
Americans who are serving there in various capacities are protected?
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, trying to respond to the Senator's question, 
the

[[Page 13026]]

answer is yes. But you don't have to believe me or Senator McCain. 
Ambassador Jeffrey, who is our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, told us back in 
June when he was getting confirmed that all civilian movements are 
accompanied by American forces, to some extent, a mixture of Iraqi and 
American forces.
  We are about to pass the baton between the Department of Defense to 
the Department of State. The civilian-military partnership that has 
been formed over the last decade has been working very well, and the 
future of Iraq is in Iraqis' hands, but they do need our help. As 
Senator McCain said, we are helping ourselves.
  On June 24, 2010, we asked General Odierno, Where are we in terms of 
Iraq? How would you evaluate our situation? And since this is football 
season----
  Mr. McCAIN. This was at a hearing?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. This was at a hearing for confirmation for General 
Austin. He said, We are inside the 10-yard line.
  Well, this is football season. I think most Americans can understand 
this great progress. He said, We have four downs. This is first in 10, 
on the 10, we have 4 downs. He felt good that we can get it into the 
end zone, but getting it into the end zone is going to require a 
follow-on presence in 2012.
  Having said that, I know most Americans want our troops to come home. 
Include me in that group. We are going to go from 50,000 to zero at the 
end of this year if something new doesn't happen. I am confident the 
Iraqis want our continued presence in a reasoned way.
  What do they need that we can provide? Intelligence gathering. We 
have the best intelligence-gathering capability of anyone in the world, 
and it helps the Iraqis stay ahead of their enemies. And who are their 
enemies? The Iranians are trying to destabilize this young democracy. 
Ambassador Jeffrey, who is a good man, said the reason we need to get 
Iraq right is it helps our national security interests.
  Show me an example in history where two democracies went to war. 
There is not any. So if he could take Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and 
replace it with a representative government, that is a huge advancement 
in our national security interests over time.
  What do the Iraqis need militarily? They don't have a mature air 
force, so General Austin said it would be in our interests not only to 
sell them planes, F-16s, but actually train them how to use those 
airplanes. They have an infant navy to patrol their coast, to protect 
them against threats there. It is in our interests not only to train 
and develop the Iraqi police and army but to make sure that our 
civilians who are going to help build this new democracy can travel 
without fear and without unnecessary casualties, because the Iranians 
are going to try to undercut us at every turn. That means targeting 
American forces left behind.
  What else do they need? Counterterrorism. Al-Qaida and other groups, 
other radical groups, are going to try to come back into Iraq and 
destabilize what we have done. We have seen some signs of that. We have 
had 60 al-Qaida types released from American custody to Iraqi custody, 
and some are back out on the streets. So a counterterrorism footprint 
would be smart. Vice President Biden is right about this. A CT 
footprint in Afghanistan and Iraq makes sense.
  When you add up all these missions, intelligence gathering, training, 
embedding, counterterrorism, force protection----
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator, are you leaving out the 
necessity for peacekeeping in the north between the Kurdish and the 
Arabs?
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is a very good point, and that is exactly sort of 
where I was going to take this. That requires the footprint of 
thousands. We don't need 5,000, but I think 10,000 when you add it up 
is probably the bare minimum to do this. Because the commanders who are 
policing the Kurdish-Arab dispute boundary line in the northern part of 
Iraq have come up with a very novel approach, and I want to give the 
administration credit and the military credit. What they have done is 
they have taken Peshmergas, which are basically Kurdish militia, 
integrated them with Iraqi national security forces and American forces 
to form companies that eventually go to brigades, where they will get 
to know each other and work together as a team. I think any neutral 
observer would tell you our presence in Kirkuk has prevented a shooting 
conflict in the past. That is what President Barzai is worried about in 
the Kurdish areas. That is 5,000, he said. He has said we will need 
5,000 troops here for a while to make sure this new concept of 
jointness develops over time. So when you add the whole package, you 
are somewhere around 10,000 plus.
  To the administration, not only is bipartisanship desired in national 
security, I think it is required. We can look back and pat each other 
on the back or blame each other about Iraq. That is not what I am 
trying to do. We are where we are, and we are in a pretty decent place 
to the point that the Iranians are going nuts. They are trying to 
undercut Iraq's national development, because their biggest nightmare 
is to have a representative democracy on their border. That will incite 
their own people in Iran to ask for more freedom.
  So, please, to the Obama administration, don't make the same mistakes 
at the end that the Bush administration made in the beginning. I can 
say with some credibility that I argued against my own political party 
infrastructure, that Senators McCain and Lieberman and others--we went 
there enough to know it was not a few dead-enders, that the whole 
security footprint was not sufficient, and the model to change Iraq was 
not working.
  It was General Petraeus's model that was adopted, to President Bush's 
credit. That was a hard decision for President Bush. The war was 
incredibly unpopular. People were frustrated. It seemed it was a lost 
cause, and President Bush went against what was the political tide at 
the moment. I am glad he did.
  I ask President Obama to consider the long-term national security 
interests of the United States and do what Senator McCain suggested--
not what he suggested, what our military suggested: define missions. Is 
it important to have some support to intelligence gathering? I would 
say yes. Training the Army and Air Force and Navy? I would say yes. 
Having some presence to protect our civilians who are going to be the 
largest groups? I would say overwhelmingly yes. Does it make sense to 
have some American military support in the Kurdish-Arab dispute area? 
Overwhelmingly yes.
  We will stand by you. I think most Americans are frustrated and war 
weary, but they don't want to lose. We are very close to changing Iraq 
by helping the Iraqi people. We can't change Iraq; only they can. They 
want to.
  We talk about the deaths of Americans and it breaks our hearts. For 
every American who has died there have probably been 10 Iraqis. This 
has not been easy for people in Iraq. That is why I never lost faith. 
What kept me going with Iraq and Afghanistan is I have been there 
enough to know there are people in those countries who want the same 
thing for their children as most people in this body want for theirs.
  To be a judge in America, one can get criticized. It is a tough job. 
One can lose their life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have personally 
met people who decided to step to the plate--to be lawyers, be judges, 
be policemen--who got killed. They knew what was coming their way.
  It is in our national security interest to help this infant 
democracy, and that is what it is. Corruption still abounds, there are 
tons of problems in Iraq, but they are on the right trajectory.
  I am asking the administration: Listen to your commanders. And 
25,000, in my view--I am not a commander, but I could understand why 
the President would say that is a bridge too far. I know what the 
generals have recommended. It goes from the midteens to the 
midtwenties. But somewhere to the north of 10, given my understanding 
of Iraq, I think it will work. But I know we are broke. One thing I can 
tell you is, we cannot afford to lose after all this investment. The 
price and

[[Page 13027]]

cost of losing in Iraq now would be devastating for years to come.
  If we do not see this through, who would help us in the future push 
back against extremism, knowing that America left at a time when they 
were asking us to stay? I am confident Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds want us 
there in reasonable numbers to make sure they can have the help they 
need to get this right.
  Apparently, the decision has not been made yet. I am urging the 
administration to look at the missions, be reasonable, understand that 
we cannot give the military all they want all the time.
  This is the decision of the Commander in Chief. He is a good man. It 
is his call. But the one thing I offer and I think the three of us 
offer in these very difficult times when America is under siege at home 
is to be supportive voices for the idea we cannot retreat and become 
fortress America.
  Look what happened when a few people from Afghanistan, in far away 
places, for less than $1 million--what havoc they wreaked on our 
country. This Sunday is the 10th anniversary. I am hopeful as we get to 
the 10th anniversary we can look back and say we have defended America 
in a bipartisan way. It is not just luck that has prevented us from 
being attacked. The President deserves a lot of credit for going after 
bin Laden, a lot of credit for adding to troops in Afghanistan when 
people were ready to come home.
  I urge this administration to listen to our military leaders and 
finish this right. It would be a tragedy upon a tragedy for us to be 
inside the 10-yard line and fumble at a time when we can score a 
touchdown--not only for our national security but for fundamental 
change in the Mideast. If we get it right in Iraq, the Arab spring is 
going to get the support it needs and deserves. If we fail in Iraq, it 
will be just repeating history's mistakes.
  The Bush administration did change. Thank God they did because they 
did not get it right early on. We are so close to the end now. Let's be 
cautious, let's be reasonable, let's err on the side of making sure we 
can sustain what we have all fought for. I tell you this: History will 
judge everybody well, including President Obama--and that would be OK 
with me--if we can turn Saddam Hussein's dictatorship into a 
representative government that would be aligned with us and be a voice 
of moderation for the rest of the 21st century.
  I would like to get Senator Lieberman's thoughts. It is one thing for 
me to talk about this in South Carolina. But even in South Carolina, a 
very red State, people are war weary and they are not excited about 
having to stay in Iraq in 2012. I think they will listen to reason. But 
during the darkest days of this effort in Iraq, Senator McCain went the 
road less traveled by saying we need more at a time when the polls said 
everybody is ready to come home. I do not question anybody's 
patriotism. It was a hard call. It was a tough fight, and there were no 
easy answers. But I am glad we chose to do what we did. I am glad 
President Bush adjusted.
  But Senator Lieberman, above all of us quite frankly, literally 
risked his political career because he believed that what happened in 
Iraq mattered to the United States.
  The Senator was right. I want to thank him on behalf of all those who 
served in Iraq for giving them the time and resources to prove we could 
get it right.
  I would like the Senator to, if he doesn't mind, to share his 
thoughts with the body about how we should finish Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my friend 
from South Carolina for his generous words.
  Obviously, what turned the tide in Iraq was a vision, a commanding 
vision by General Petraeus about what had to happen to succeed with a 
new counterterrorism strategy and tremendous support from the men and 
women of the American military, a generation that volunteered, that 
stepped up to the call, that rightfully should be called America's 
``new greatest generation.'' They are an inspiration to us.
  Of course, we lost a lot of them there. The Iraqi military fought 
hard and now, increasingly, has shown its capability to defend its own 
nation, which is what we had hoped and prayed and fought for. So my 
friends from Arizona and South Carolina had the same reaction I did 
yesterday. We began to talk to each other by the end of the day as we 
came back to Washington, to what was originally a FOX News story, that 
the decision had been made in the administration to go down to 3,000 
troops. We reacted that way because it was lower than any number we had 
ever heard from anybody we had confidence in about what was necessary 
to secure all that we have gained and all the Iraqis have gained.
  The papers today report it as a fact. Secretary Panetta says no 
decision has been made. I hope not because in these matters--I 
understand there is politics in Iraq as well as here, but what has to 
be put at the top of the list is what is best for our national security 
and, of course, for the Iraqis, what is best for their national 
security.
  To me, if the number is right, and it is only going to be 3,000 more 
there after the end of this year, I don't see how we can feel confident 
that we can protect what we have spent a lot of American lives--a lot 
of Iraqi lives, a lot of our national treasure and theirs--securing. 
And I don't see how we can help to avoid a kind of possible return to 
civil war, particularly on the fault lines my friends have mentioned, 
between the Kurdish areas and the Arab areas.
  This is a decision ultimately for the President. I want to say this 
about doing the right thing: The President, obviously, took a position 
for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq during the campaign of 
2008. I think there were a lot of his supporters who felt, who hoped, 
who dreamed that pretty much the day--we are hearing a lot about day 
one these days, a lot about day one after the next election. But I 
think a lot of President Obama's supporters expected that on day one of 
his administration he would begin a full withdrawal from Iraq. To his 
great, great credit, he did not do that because I think he understood 
he had a goal, which was to pull our troops out of Iraq but that 
America had an interest and he as President had to protect that 
interest in not losing in Iraq, not letting it fall apart, and not 
letting us suffer the loss we would to our credibility and strength 
around the world.
  My friends and I traveled a lot together. We have been in places far 
away from Iraq--Asia, for instance--where, when it was uncertain about 
whether we were going to stick to it in Iraq we heard real concern from 
our allies in Asia. They said: You know, Iraq is far from here, but we 
depend on American strength and credibility for our security and 
freedom in Asia, in the Asia-Pacific region. If you are seen to be weak 
and lame and not up to the fight in Iraq, it is going to compromise our 
freedom.
  The President, to his credit, understood all that and put us on a 
slow path to withdrawal. But I don't think anybody would fault the 
President if we--and I think the expectation has been that we have 
achieved so much that we could--leave a core group there to continue to 
train the Iraqi military so they reach their full potential, to be 
there to assist them in a counterterrorism fight because that is 
essentially what is going on in Iraq now. The war is basically over, 
but the extremists, the Shia militia, some remnants of al-Qaida, are 
carrying out terrorist attacks. Those are the explosive--literally 
explosive--high-visibility attacks.
  We have special capacities in the U.S. military to work with the 
Iraqi military to prevent and counter those terrorist attacks.
  Then the final part of the mission has to be to protect the American 
personnel there, civilian personnel. I don't know what that number will 
be. At one point--we already have the largest----
  Mr. McCAIN. Can I ask my friend to yield?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 7 minutes past 
12:30.

[[Page 13028]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. At one point somebody indicated to 
us--we were in Baghdad--that the American Embassy, which is already the 
largest U.S. Embassy in the world in terms of personnel, could go up as 
high as 20,000. It could be that high. Those are a lot of civilians 
committed to working in the country that we need to have forces there 
to protect.
  We are all coming to the floor today to appeal to Secretary Panetta, 
to the President: It would be shortsighted. If it is really going to be 
3,000 and only 3,000, and, frankly, we are not going to tuck some away 
in those civilian personnel numbers in the embassy or somewhere else, 
covert operators--if it is really only 3,000, they are not going to be 
able to do the job that needs to be done. Not only that, they are going 
to send a message of weakness, lack of resolve, anxiousness to get out 
to the Iraqis' enemies and ours in the region, and that particularly 
includes Iran.
  I join my colleagues. We have been together on this for a long time. 
I don't want us to squander what we have won, and we will, I am afraid, 
if we only leave 3,000 American troops there.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I say to my colleague, no events in history are 
exactly similar. But I think we learned in Lebanon and again in Somalia 
that forces that are too small and do not have sufficient force 
protection--and I am not saying they are exact parallels, but certainly 
it puts whoever is there, whether they be military or civilian, in some 
kind of danger. As that progress has been made--and it has been 
significant progress in a country that has never known democracy--we 
have now Turkish attacks on the PKK up in the Kurdish area. We have 
continued tensions in the areas to which the Senator from South 
Carolina referred, which at one point, I believe, last June almost came 
to exchange of hostilities, between the Peshmerga and the others, and 
there is also increased Iranian interest in Basra. There continues to 
be the export of arms and IEDs from Iran into Iraq. They have no air 
force. They have no ability to protect their airspace.
  Isn't it true their counterintelligence is dependent on our technical 
assistance, which means personnel?
  So the argument seems to be that if we want this experiment to 
succeed, we should not put it in unnecessary jeopardy.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will add, if I may, the 3,000 number does not allow the 
missions that are obvious to most everybody who has looked at Iraq to 
be performed in a successful manner. That is the bottom line. That is 
why no one has thrown out 3,000 before. Can you do it with 10,000? That 
is where you are pushing the envelope. The Kurdish-Arab boundary 
dispute almost went hot. This new plan we have come up with to 
integrate the Peshmurga, the Iraqi security forces with some Americans, 
will pay dividends over time. Mr. President, 5,000 is what the American 
commander said he needed to continue that plan. We have a plan to even 
wind down that number. It is just going to take a while. When it comes 
to Iraq, I can tell you right now I would not want our American 
civilians to be without some American military support, given what I 
know is coming to Iraq from Iran.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I mention one fundamental here? The question is: Is 
it in the United States national security interest to have these 
10,000-plus American troops carrying out the missions we just described 
or is it not? If it is, then it is pure sophistry to say: Well, we 
would only consider this if the Iraqis requested it. If we are waiting 
for the Iraqis to request it, then it means it doesn't matter whether 
the United States is there.
  I think the three of us and others--including General Odierno, 
General Petraeus, and the most respected military and civilian 
leadership--think it is in our national interest. The way this should 
have happened is the United States and the Iraqis sitting down 
together, once coming to an agreement, making a joint announcement that 
it is in both countries' national security interest. If it is not, then 
we should not send one single American there, not one.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator will yield for a second, that is a good 
point. We have been asked to go by both administrations. The Iraqis 
have a political problem. That is not lost upon us. Most people in most 
countries don't want hundreds of thousands of foreign troops roaming 
around their country forever. So the Iraqis have been upfront with us. 
We want to continue the partnership, but it needs to be at a smaller 
level. They are absolutely right. I don't buy one moment that there is 
a movement in Iraq saying we will take 3,000, not 1 soldier more. I 
think what is going on here is there is, as Senator McCain suggested, a 
number drives the mission, not the mission drives the number. At the 
end of the day, this 3,000 doesn't get any of the essential jobs done. 
It leads to 3,000 exposed. It leaves the thousands of civilians without 
the help they need. It leaves the Iraqi military in a lurch. There is 
no upside to this.
  I would end with this thought: Let's get the missions identified and 
resource them in an adequate way, and I think the country will rally 
around the President. I cannot think of too many Americans who would 
want our people to be in harm's way unnecessarily. If you leave one, 
you have some obligation to the one. Well, if you left one, you would 
be doing that person a disservice. Leave enough so we can get it right, 
and that number is far beyond 3,000.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to say in response to something 
Senator McCain said, somebody in the military said to me: If we are not 
going to leave enough to do the job, we might as well not leave anybody 
there.
  Of course, we don't want that to happen. There are a couple of 
alternatives here. One is that the 3,000 is not the number. Hopefully 
we will have clarification. It is more than that. In all our trips to 
Iraq, talking about repeated teams of leadership, never has there been 
anyone who said to us that we needed less than 10,000 American troops 
there to do this job. I want to repeat this; there is a kind of sleight 
of hand here. Maybe it is 3,000 here and a few more thousand tucked 
into the civilian workforce at the embassy and a few more somewhere in 
the special covert operators. If that is the game plan here, it is a 
mistake. We ought to see exactly how many troops are leaving there. It 
gives confidence to our allies in the region, particularly in Iraq, and 
it will unsettle our enemies, particularly in Iran.
  Dr. Ken Pollack has a piece in the National Interest that is out now 
about this situation. He is concerned about the small number of troops 
that may be left there and agrees that there may be some Iraqis who 
might be pushing for a smaller post-2011 force with a more limited set 
of missions. Dr. Pollack says:

       That would be a bad deal for the Iraqi people and for the 
     United States. Our troops would be reduced to spectators as 
     various Iraqi groups employ violence against one another. 
     Moreover, if we have troops in Iraq but do nothing to stop 
     bloodshed there, it would be seen as proof of Washington's 
     complicity. If American forces cannot enforce the rules of 
     the game, they should not be in Iraq, period, lest they be 
     portrayed as contributing to the destruction of the country.

  That is what we are saying.
  The final point here is Dr. Pollack argues in this piece that the 
United States, if this is in response--giving the benefit of the doubt 
for a moment--to Iraqi political concerns, that the U.S. has the 
leverage to avoid this dangerous outcome. He writes:

       America has the goods to bargain. The question is whether 
     Washington will.

  That is the question I believe my colleagues from Arizona and South 
Carolina are asking today: Will we bargain with our Iraqi allies that 
this is the problem to be able to work with them for another chapter to 
secure all we have gained together up until now?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate your indulgence and yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________