[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8886-8887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         IRAQ WAR'S IMPACT ON CURRENT NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have the benefit of looking through the 
lens of history to learn from past mistakes in the hopes of making more 
informed decisions for the future. No example is more relevant today 
than the unintended effects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and their 
bearing on the threats of today. I opposed that war from the beginning, 
and we have paid, and continue to pay, a tremendous price--in American 
lives, in the unfathomable expense of taxpayer dollars, and in the 
escalation of strife in that region, and beyond.
  There is no doubt that the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq 
and the Levant, ISIL, have emerged from Al Qaeda in Iraq, seizing upon 
instability, weak institutions, ethnic fractions, and general hostility 
toward Western forces that resulted from the post-9/11 Iraq invasion. 
Our personnel, allies, and interests abroad face significant threats 
from this terrorist group, which have arisen out of the ill-conceived 
invasion of Iraq.
  We can be proud of the bravery, dedication, and sacrifice of our 
soldiers and their families. They are not at fault for the complex 
situation in which we now find ourselves. They served our Nation 
dutifully, and for that we are grateful. Rather, it serves as a 
reminder that policymakers cannot act recklessly--especially when 
taking military action. As we continue to address the very real threat 
that is ISIL, it is astounding to me how far in the past the hard 
lessons we learned now appear to be to some commentators and 
policymakers.
  I ask unanimous consent that a perceptive and well-written analysis 
on this subject, written by the distinguished journalist and former 
foreign correspondent Barrie Dunsmore, that was published in the 
Rutland Herald and the Montpelier (Barre) Times Argus on May 24, 2015, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [From the Rutland Herald and the Montpelier (Barre) Times Argus; May 
                               24, 2015]

                             Short Memories

                          (By Barrie Dunsmore)

       ``I am running because I think the world is falling 
     apart,'' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said this past 
     week. Senator Graham is not alone among the many aspiring 
     Republican presidential candidates. Not only do they want us 
     to believe the world is falling apart. They also want us to 
     believe it's not their fault.
       As Robert Costa wrote in the Washington Post, ``One by one, 
     nearly a dozen GOP hopefuls took the stage (in Des Moines 
     Iowa) for a Lincoln dinner, each different in style and 
     stature but all joining a rising Republican chorus that lays 
     blame for the Islamic State terrorist group squarely at the 
     feet of President Barack Obama.'' Senator Lindsey Graham said 
     to cheers, ``If you fought in Iraq, it worked. It's not your 
     fault it's going to hell. It's Obama's fault.''
       The Islamic State is but one of the Middle East's problems 
     of recent years. The hopes for a more democratic region 
     engendered by

[[Page 8887]]

     the Arab Spring, have been dashed. Egypt is now more of a 
     military dictatorship than it was under President Hosni 
     Mubarak. Without dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is now awash 
     with weapons, without a functioning government and ruled by 
     tribes. Syria is still in the throes of a three year 
     unresolved civil war, with an estimated 150,000, dead. As 
     Iran and Saudi Arabia violently vie for dominance in Lebanon, 
     Syria, Iraq and Yemen, indisputably the Middle East is more 
     unstable than it was seven years ago.
       Yet just as the world economy was in a deep depression 
     after the market crash of '08, when Obama took office so too 
     was the Middle East in turmoil--mostly because of the 2003 
     American invasion of Iraq.
       As they seek to shift the blame of Iraq, which just last 
     year conservative pundit George Will wrote was ``the worst 
     foreign policy decision in U.S. history,'' Republicans are 
     asking us to forget the past. I don't doubt that some already 
     have. In the era of Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, seven 
     years may seem like an eternity. But not everyone will 
     forget.
       Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush found this out on a recent 
     campaign stop, when Ivy Ziedrich, a Nevada college student 
     confronted him with the charge, ``Your brother created 
     ISIS.'' Bush's response was, ``ISIS didn't exist when my 
     brother was president.''
       It is accurate that the name Islamic State was not in use 
     during the George W. Bush presidency. But the movement that 
     later became ISIS was a direct result of the American 
     invasion. That group called itself ``al Qaida in Iraq.'' It 
     was led by the fanatic Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, and was 
     responsible for hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and 
     beheadings--yes beheadings--in a reign of terror which made 
     Zarqawi the most wanted man in Iraq. His goal was to rid Iraq 
     of foreign forces, and to provoke sectarian conflict between 
     Iraq's Shiite majority and his own Sunni Muslim sect.
       Zarqawi was killed in an American bombing raid in 2006. But 
     nine years ago, the Washington Post reported, ``Analysts 
     warned that his death may not stem the tide of the insurgency 
     and violence. . . . Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous 
     terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue 
     after his death.''
       Indeed they did. And joined by numerous bitter Sunni 
     officers from Saddam Hussein's army, al-Qaida in Iraq 
     eventually morphed into the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria 
     (ISIS.) Its current leader is an Iraqi named Abu Bakr al 
     Baghdadi, who claims to be the caliph (supreme leader) of the 
     new Islamic State.
       But ISIS is by no means the only bi-product of the American 
     invasion of Iraq. When Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his 
     Sunni dominated regime were overthrown by American military 
     might, there were no happier people than the Shiite mullahs 
     of Iran. Saddam had initiated the bloody eight year Iran-Iraq 
     war. Without Saddam on its border to worry about, Iran was 
     now free to encourage the Iraqi Shiite majority to assume 
     power over their Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Thus a Shiite 
     led Iraq became a major ally of Iran in its power struggle 
     with Sunni Saudi Arabia. And that Sunni-Shiite battle for 
     regional domination is at the root of most of the current 
     sectarian violence in the Middle East.
       (This reminds me of the credibly sourced story that 
     surfaced years ago. Evidently after meeting with the 
     president on the eve of the Iraq invasion, one of the Iraqi 
     exiles who strongly encouraged American intervention was 
     nevertheless shocked that Mr. Bush did not seem to understand 
     the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.)
       But let's set aside all this troublesome history. What is 
     it that Republicans want to do--in the future--to resolve the 
     problem of the Islamic State?
       Most of them apparently feel that in 2016, American voters 
     will want their president to get really tough with ISIS. So 
     far, the rhetoric has been overblown and viable alternatives 
     seem in short supply.
       Senator Marco Rubio (R-FLA), when speaking to the Freedom 
     Forum of South Carolina, used a line from the movie 
     ``Taken'', in explaining what he would do with the 
     terrorists. ``We will look for you. We will find you. And we 
     will kill you.''
       Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said at a 
     recent meeting in Iowa. ``They want to bring back the 7th 
     century of jihad. So here's my suggestion: We load up our 
     bombers, and we bomb them back to the 7th century.''
       Senator Graham and most of the other candidates, seem once 
     again to be under the sway of the same neo-conservative, 
     tough-guy thinking that gave us the Iraq War. Presidential 
     wannabes might want to take a closer look at that war--eight 
     years of fighting, at one point with 162,000 U.S. troops on 
     the ground and substantial air and naval support nearby. The 
     cost was at least $2 trillion, nearly 4500 Americans killed 
     and hundreds of thousands seriously wounded. Yet with all 
     that military might and its enormous costs, the United States 
     did not prevail.

                          ____________________