Floor Statement
May 15, 2007
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment, which will responsibly transition our mission in Iraq, and reverse four years of failed policy, by safely redeploying our troops out of harms way.
Despite our best wishes, and despite our military’s best efforts we are unable to solve Iraq’s problems with military force. Over four years after invading Iraq, we still lack a coherent strategy, and our military presence has not improved the security situation in Iraq.
This is simply unacceptable. Yet the President contends now, just as he has contended for the last four years, that “absolutely we’re winning,” that things are getting better, that we do have a strategy, but that it just needs more time.
Those statements are false. We have no strategy in Iraq, just a surge tactic in search of a strategy. But, we had a surge in late 2005, and the result was the worst year of violence in Iraq since the war began. We also had two additional surges in Operation Forward Together I and II, and both of those surges failed as well.
My colleague Senator Hagel from Nebraska recently argued “The President’s strategy is taking America deeper and deeper into quagmire with no exist strategy. The strategy to deepen America’s military involvement in Iraq will not bring about a resolution in Iraq.” I whole-heartedly agree.
As the Baker Hamilton commission rightly concluded, there will be no military victory in Iraq. Iraq cannot be solved through military force alone. Only Iraqis can solve the quagmire now facing that country. Only Iraqis can choose to reconcile, to reach power-sharing agreements, to govern and police collectively, and to share the country’s oil wealth.
But despite our best hopes that is not happening. And our military is unable to make that happen—this is why the surge tactic is fundamentally flawed, because we cannot implement a military solution to a political conflict.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to protect Iraqis and to help them reach these compromises. But we aren’t succeeding in doing that—in fact, for four years now, we haven’t succeeded in doing that. An objective look at key indicators since our invasion will demonstrate that the situation has steadily deteriorated each year under the Bush administration, whether you examine number of civilian deaths, number of internally displaced refugees, number of Iraqis who have fled the country, or the amount of power and water flowing to Iraqi homes. All of these indicators demonstrate that the overall situation in Iraq has not improved during the last four years.
That is why I believe we must begin redeploying our forces out of Iraq, within the next 120 days, and complete that redeployment within the next year. And that is why I also believe that simultaneous to the redeployment, and after the redeployment has been completed, we must conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations in Iraq, to protect the Iraqi population from terrorists who are destroying that country, to expunge Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and to help ensure that the Iraq does not become a terrorist safe-haven.
I want to note that while I agree with Senator Levin that Military Readiness is currently lacking, I am concerned by the waiver provisions included in the Levin amendment.
It is true that the Administration is deploying US combat forces who are not mission ready, who are not adequately trained, and who have not been given appropriate resting periods between deployments. When less than half of our soldiers and Marines believe that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect, we know that our forces are overextended, overtaxed, and not properly trained for unclear missions that are unachievable.
But providing a waiver to the President is tantamount to reauthorizing the war: It doesn’t hold the administration or the Iraqi Government accountable; it doesn’t force a change in mission; and it doesn’t begin to redeploy our forces. Instead it allows the Administration to stay the course—“full speed ahead” in the words of Vice-President Cheney.
To me, the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment provides the best means for changing our mission in Iraq.
Mr. President, as much as I wish that we were able to secure Iraq ourselves, that the surge could work or that our military presence in Iraq could bring about the compromises necessary, I think the evidence is clear that it’s not happening.
The American people know it, our troops who have sacrificed everything in Iraq know it, and the Iraqi people know it.
Only when Iraqis themselves decided that they will no longer tolerate violence and destruction, only when their leaders come together, will this violence reduced. That is what needs to happen across Iraq, and the United States should help where it can, by training and equipping reliable and accountable Iraqi Security Forces who will serve the greater Iraqi nation, not their own tribe, or their own sect.
According to recent CBS polling, 70% of Shiites and nearly all Sunnis think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security worse. The vast majority of Iraqis, regardless of their sect, believe that American troop presence in Iraq is making Iraq less safe.
Seventy-eight percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of US forces on their soil, and 51% of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. Slightly more than half of the population whom we are trying to protect approve of attacks on US soldiers.
But it’s not just the Iraqi public who want American forces to leave their country—the Iraqi government does as well. A majority of Iraq’s parliament recently signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American forces.
And, at a recent high-level meeting, Iraq and its neighbors signed what they called the Marmara Declaration, reaffirming this sentiment. They declared that “a timetable should be established for the Government of Iraq to take full authority and responsibility, including for security throughout the country.” The declaration went on to say “the US should commit to a comprehensive strategy for a responsible withdrawal consistent with Iraq’s security and stability, based on milestones and a general time horizon.” It also says “Iraq’s armed forces need to be nationally representative. Iraq’s police should be credible to its citizens and representative of the communities they serve.
Mr. President, the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment does just that—it does what the Iraqi people and the American people want, and it does it in responsible ways. This legislation mandates that the redeployment of US forces should begin within a 120 days and must be completed within a year. And simultaneous to this redeployment, this legislation calls for continued counter-terrorism operations and the training and equipping of reliable and accountable Iraqi security forces to take over the responsibility of safeguarding Iraq’s population.
It is up to us to change the President’s failed course in Iraq and to hold the President and the Iraqi Government accountable. It is up to us to mandate a change in direction, to begin to responsibly bring our troops home, to continue to help the Iraqis battle terrorists, and train and equip reliable Iraqi security forces, so that Iraqis can police their own country and decide on their own future.
We cannot afford another day of escalation. The price our nation has paid, and the price our men and women in uniform have paid is too high for a failed policy—a policy that has not succeeded, because it cannot succeed.
I urge my colleagues to support the Reid-Feingold-Dodd amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
