Department of Defense

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

IRAQ

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the much awaited speech by President Bush this morning about the challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan was promised to be a new perspective. It was promised to offer the possibility that at least we would be considering a new approach.

I was disappointed. The President has offered the American people a false choice between resolve and retreat. The real choice should be between a strategy of accountability and the vague generalities which we continue to hear from this administration. We have to move beyond the policies of fear to a plan of forceful commitment to protecting America and our values.

The most telling line in President Bush's speech this morning about the threat of terrorism was this:

There is no alternative.

Once again, the President tells us there is no alternative but to stay the course in Iraq. But he fails to answer the most basic questions that more and more Americans are asking every single day: How do we know that progress is being made? How do we measure success? How much longer will America, with its best and bravest men and women in uniform, be facing this insurgency, killing, and the terrible conditions which we find in Iraq? Most importantly, what is President Bush's plan to ensure that our troop commitment in Iraq does not compromise our safety here at home? The White House promised us new details in this speech. We did not receive them, just old generalities.

All Americans are committed to our troops, make no mistake about that. When we take a look at the appropriations bills that come before this Congress to provide the resources for the troops in Iraq, one could not pick out which Senators voted for or against Iraq in terms of the invasion. All Senators--Democrats and Republicans--regardless of their feeling about the wisdom of this strategy are committed to our troops and committed to the resources they need to come home safely. That is not the question. The question is, What is President Bush's plan to achieve the goals that he states over and over? He failed to answer that question today.

Once again, we are presented with false connections between why we are in Iraq and why we were attacked on September 11. The implication is distorting. It is false. The 9/11 Commission put that allegation to rest. They found no operational relationship between Iraq and what happened in America on September 11, 2001.

But now, 2 1/2 years into Iraq, the war has not made us safer from terrorism. It has altered the strategic environment to our disadvantage. Today we have fewer allies in Iraq than we did when this war began. We have less credibility.

The search for Osama bin Laden has been diverted. The President quoted Osama bin Laden today. I think it is time to capture Osama bin Laden, as we have been promised so many times would happen.

We have fewer options dealing with Iran and North Korea, and the administration knows it. Our army is strong and brave and resilient, but it is being pushed to the limit. Our National Guard and Reserves and their families are loyal and courageous Americans. They have carried an extraordinary burden in this war in Iraq, and there is no end in sight.

The President gave a rousing speech, but we learned nothing about how we will either win the war in Iraq or the war on terror. The choice in Iraq is not to stay the course or withdraw tomorrow. That is a false choice. We don't want or need to retreat and allow that part of the world to descend into chaos politically. We need to implement a strategy that gives the Iraqis a chance to build a government that stands on its own. That is the only government that can succeed in Iraq.

This morning, the Department of Defense reported that we have 148,810 soldiers in Iraq; 1,945 Americans have died since our invasion; 14,902 have been wounded. How many innocent civilian Iraqis have been killed? It is anyone's estimate at this point, but some say between 20,000 and 40,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the invasion.

We owe it to our men and women in uniform, we owe it to those who believe in America to let them know what our path for success will be. And we certainly owe it to America's taxpayers who are spending $1.5 billion a week in Iraq to let them know what our strategy will be.

Last week in Washington, a piece of information came out that had been protected and classified for a long period of time. I had heard about it, but we were not allowed to speak about it. Then Generals Casey and Abizaid came to testify in an open and public hearing and conceded the fact that out of over 100 battalions of the Iraqi Army in that country, only 1 out of the 100 were battle ready; 1 out of 100 prepared for battle to stand and fight on their own. That is a shocking disclosure--the billions of dollars we have put into Iraq, the amount we have invested in the premise that once the Iraqi Army was up and ready to fight, we could come home, and then to learn after all of this time that only one battalion stands ready to fight.

This week, we addressed a letter to the President--some 40 Democratic Senators joined together--and asked the President critical questions which we think need to be answered, questions which were not answered today. Here are the questions:

How many Iraqi forces must be capable of operating without U.S. assistance or with minimal U.S. support before we can begin reducing our military presence? When will that number be reached? When can we start bringing American soldiers home?

The next question: What specific measures does the administration plan to take before and after this critical October 15 constitutional referendum to forge the necessary political consensus and reconcile the growing differences, sectarian and religious, in the nation of Iraq? If such consensus is not reached, what policy changes will be required?

Just 2 weeks ago, the President of Iraq came to visit us in the Capitol. He is a man of Kurdish ethnic origin. It was interesting because his entire delegation he brought with him was Kurds. His closest aide and his security detail were all Kurdish. The interesting thing about that is, we are talking about an Iraq where all factions are coming together, and yet it appears their leaders are traveling in these little enclaves that represent their sect, their ethnic background. There is not an indication
that Iraq is viewing the prospect of nationhood in the way these top officials are conducting their public lives. How are we dealing with that?

Another question the President and the administration must face: What efforts have they made or will they make to obtain broader international support, including engaging Iraq's neighbors and other nations, particularly Muslim nations, in an effort to stabilize Iraq?

There is no question that many in Iraq resent our presence. They view us as an occupying force. When the generals brief us, they tell us bluntly: We cannot defeat the insurgency. It will take political and economic forces. We cannot do this militarily. And yet our force is there. Our sons and daughters, those in uniform whom we love, are there with their lives at risk every single day.

What is this administration doing to change the face of that force that stabilizes Iraq until they can control their own fate and their own future? What are they doing, if anything, to bring in troops from Muslim nations so that we no longer face the criticism that we are somehow invading this Muslim country? It is an important question to be answered.

How should the American people, we ask the President, assess the progress in reconstituting Iraq, in reconstructing it? What are the tangible results of the billions of dollars America has provided for Iraq's reconstruction? Does the administration have a plan to ensure that those who misuse taxpayers' funds will be held accountable? How much more will taxpayers be asked to contribute to Iraq's reconstruction? What steps is the administration taking to ensure that future investment will not be misused?

We continue to hear that when it comes to the basics of life, there is less electricity today for the families and people of Iraq than there was before the invasion. We know they are struggling with the basics of life--water, sewage, safety in the streets, safety for children to go to school.

What we are saying at this point is this administration--every administration--must be held accountable for its policies. We must be able to measure whether progress is being made and whether staying the course will result in the kind of success the President is looking for.

None of these questions were answered today. We have no clearer picture of where we go from here than we did yesterday. At this point, the President has a special responsibility to the American people--not to convince us of the danger of global terrorism; we are convinced. We lived through 9/11. We know that these people who are engaged in that terrorism are looking for an opportunity to strike again. But the President has a responsibility to explain to the American people why Iraq, which was not the testing grounds for terrorism before our invasion, has become that, why it has become a magnet for these terrorists to come from all over the Middle East and around the world to detonate car bombs and to attack our troops, and what we are doing to bring it to an end.

Those are the questions the American people still face. I know why the President held this press conference. He knows as well as I do, when you speak to people across this country, they have serious misgivings, not about the bravery of our troops, not about the need to make America strong, but that this strategy this administration is pursuing will bring us to a conclusion where America and its values are truly protected.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov