National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 22, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time allotted.

Mr. President, we should take heed of what the Government of Iraq is doing and saying. We should take heed of the fact that it has made progress in establishing itself and making significant steps forward. In this context, let me again remind my colleagues of what the National Security Adviser for Iraq has said. He suggested we should begin withdrawing troops by the end of this year. That is what the Reed-Levin amendment would require. He also suggests and predicts that by the end of 2007 most American combat forces would be out of the country. He says, in his words:

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of the people.

I concur with Senator Warner that we should support the Iraqi Government, pay attention to what they are saying. I think we should pay particular attention to what Iraq's security advisor has said. This was not a casual off-the-cuff remark. He said it first on CNN, where he knew he was speaking to a world audience, particularly an American one. Then he crafted a very careful op ed opinion for the Washington Post. If that is what one of the key leaders of the Iraqi Government is saying, then I think that supports our efforts for the Reed-Levin amendment.

Also, this amendment has been mischaracterized grotesquely. This is not some arbitrary fixed timetable. This is not something where dates mean dates specific. We say precisely that the President shall submit to the Congress a plan by the end of 2006, with estimated dates for the continued, phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise. I think my colleagues demonstrate a lack of confidence in the ability of the President, listening to his commanders in the field to prepare an estimate of our posture in Iraq over the next several years. There is no end point in our amendment because we recognize, as so many others, that this process could take an indefinite time but a time that at least could be estimated by the President.

Let me also suggest that the Levin-Reed amendment recognizes there will be a residual force in Iraq of American trainers, American logisticians, and of special operations troops to seek out these terrorists, rather than having young Americans at checkpoints who are subject, because of a lack, apparently, of coordinated support, to being attacked successfully by Iraqis. That mission should be done by the Iraqis. But we cannot give up the right and capability of striking at terrorists in Iraq. This amendment clearly states that. It is something else, too, because we have a lot of people coming to the floor talking about we are going to stay the course and we are going to support them.

We have done nothing virtually with respect to nonmilitary support, effectively, for Iraq. Where are the State Department teams? Months ago, with great fanfare, the President announced we are going to develop eventual reconstruction teams and put them in the provinces of Iraq. There are only four. They lack resources, they lack personnel, and they lack real support and emphasis. Unless we can fix some nonmilitary aspects of the reconstruction, redevelopment, political mentoring, our military efforts will buy us time that we will squander, as we have squandered to date.

Now, the real test of the other side is not the rhetoric on the floor and the slogans that you cannot ``cut and run'' and appropriately recognizing the great sacrifices of our forces. It is coming down here with a plan--over many years, according to them--and the resources to support that plan--the billions and billions of dollars that we will need over the next several years, the personnel we need in the country, not just from our military forces but from our State Department, our Agency for International Development, and our Justice Department. If we are truly committed to this concept of complete victory, we need a plan. The President has to deliver such a plan. This amendment will require him, we hope, to sketch out that plan.

At the heart of this, it is not about satisfying the Congress, it is about confiding in, with candor, the American people, telling them what the risks are, what the costs are and how we are going to pay for it. It is easy to come down here and say we are going to support our troops and do all these things. But then 2 weeks from today, or a week from today, we will have a bill to cut the estate tax. How do we pay for these troops and give them equipment and reset our equipment? How do we give resources for troops in the field and support this new Iraqi Government? With what?

The real test of the other side will be when they come up with a plan and with money and with resources. I believe this approach is the most sound tactically, strategically, and politically, not to surrender but to succeed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov