Withdrawal of U. S. Troops From Iraq

WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. TROOPS FROM IRAQ

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a simple proposition: Congress should act like a coequal branch of Government and vote on whether to keep American troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years. Late last month, the President told the American people that it is his intent to keep American soldiers in Iraq through the end of his term in office. He has never before made such a sweeping commitment. When the Senate voted in October of 2002 to send troops to Iraq, few Americans believed then that the U.S. military would be in Iraq in 2006, let alone 2009 or beyond. Based on what the Bush administration said then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now Iraq would be free and democratic. Based on what the Bush administration said then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now Iraq would be stable and self-supporting. Based on what the Bush administration said then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now the vast majority of U.S. forces, if not all of them, would be safely back home.

Unfortunately, the rosy forecast put out by the White House and the Pentagon in 2002 perished in the harsh reality of Iraq.

The failure to plan for the post-war period has thus far created less security for the world, greater heartache for Iraq, and extraordinary costs for America.

As of today, neither the American people nor the Congress knows how the President intends to get American troops out of Iraq. Instead, virtually every day, the administration offers a new theory for how discouraging events on the ground in Iraq are actually positive signs.

Here is what is indisputable: 2,348 American soldiers are dead, 17,469 are injured, and 262 billion taxpayer dollars have been spent.

If our troops remain in Iraq for at least 3 more years, how many more will die, how many more will be injured? How many more hundreds of billions of dollars will it cost?

By all accounts, the insurgency remains strong and is constantly attacking and killing American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians. Every day there is another bombing, another brutal image on the TV that reflects the chaos that passes for an average day in Iraq.

Sectarian violence is rampant. The ethnic strife is so grave that Shiites and Sunnis living in mixed neighborhoods are fleeing for the safety of ethnic enclaves.

In recent months, there have been more and more groups of bodies found--hands bound, shot in the back of the head or beheaded--and many Iraqis have come to believe that their own Iraqi Interior Ministry is participating in these death squad-style killings.

According to Ambassador Khalilzad, the ``potential is there'' for all-out civil war. That, my friends, is an understatement. As former Prime Minister Allawi concedes, a low-level civil war is already being waged in Iraq.

The so-called ``enduring bases'' that the Pentagon has built in Iraq certainly create the appearance that the Bush administration intends for the United States to occupy Iraq indefinitely, unnecessarily fostering ill-will among the Iraqi population and throughout the Arab world.

Oil production, household fuel availability, and electricity production are lower than they were 2 years ago. Iraqis have electricity half of each day. About 32 percent of Iraqis are unemployed.

The list of problems that plague Iraq goes on and on.

Supporters of the war tout the Iraqi forces that are standing up and taking responsibility for security. Yet it has been reported that not a single Iraqi security force battalion can operate without U.S. assistance. The Iraqi police force is plagued by absenteeism and militia infiltration. The level of incompetence is high enough that U.S. forces are reluctant to hand over their best weapons to the Iraqis.

You will also hear supporters of the war point to the three elections as proof of progress. Yes, there have been elections. But as the current impasse makes clear, elections are just the beginning. And while those elected have been deliberating for the past 3 months, unable to reach consensus over the makeup of the new Iraqi Government, insurgents have been exploiting the power vacuum to kill, to maim, and to instill terror and fear.

Supporters of the war will also point to our reconstruction efforts. But billions of reconstruction dollars have been misused, misspent, or lost by American contractors, like Halliburton, and Iraqi ministries, including the Ministry of Oil.

While in Iraq recently, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I sat down with representatives of the Oil Ministry to discuss the issue of graft. After I repeatedly pointed to independent analyses documenting the serious corruption problems within the Iraqi oil sector, the Iraqi officials finally acknowledged that there were ``small'' problems with graft in this sector. Considering that oil accounts for more than 90 percent of the country's revenues, this ought to be extremely disturbing to Congress and people all across America.

Just as the President made the case to go to war, he owes it to Congress and the American people to come to Congress and lay out his plan and his budget for achieving a lasting peace in Iraq.

Congress owes it to the American people and the institution to vote.

If the President refuses to come to Congress in the coming weeks with his plan and his budget to win the peace in Iraq, Congress owes it to the American people to vote up or down on whether to keep American troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years.

The President's case for winning the peace in Iraq should address these concerns:

First, how the President can help make the Iraqis self-reliant so that they can defeat the deadly insurgency.

Second, how the President intends to help Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders break the political impasse so that they can form a unity government.

Third, how the President intends to pull the Iraqi people back from the brink of all-out civil war and the specter of another Rwanda or Darfur.

Fourth, how the President intends to help rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and ensure that Iraqis have access to basic services like electricity and clean water.

And fifth, how the President intends to bring the troops home from Iraq.

If need be, to be sensitive to national security matters, I would not be averse to the Senate moving into Executive Session to consider portions of the President's plan and his budget for securing the peace in Iraq.

I simply ask the President to come to Congress and describe his plan and his budget specifically, and let Congress consider its potential to succeed before the Congress, with its silence, consents to 3 more years of very costly involvement in Iraq.

The vote I call for today, if held, won't be about cutting-and-running. It won't be about who comes up with the best spin. It will be about holding the President and Congress accountable. The vote will hold the President accountable for presenting a plan and a budget for securing the peace. And the vote will hold Congress accountable by making it finally act like a co-equal branch of government.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/