National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 21, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks this afternoon by recognizing the ultimate sacrifice paid by one of our soldiers, one of my fellow Texans, who gave his life this week in Iraq.
PFC Kristian Menchaca, age 23, of Houston, joined the military last year and was soon deployed to Iraq as part of the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry, 2nd Brigade, of the 101st Airborne based in Fort Campbell, KY.
According to military reports, Menchaca and his fellow soldier, PFC Thomas Tucker of Oregon, were part of a unit checking vehicles near the Euphrates River south of Baghdad. They were taken when their checkpoint was attacked and, as we now know, they died in service to their Nation, and their bodies have since been recovered.
Private First Class Menchaca is described by his family in various reports as a man who loved basketball and Mexican food. His cousin, Sylvia Grice, is quoted as saying:
He talked about how happy he was that he was serving his country. Everyone he met liked him. He had that kind of personality. He liked to help people. He was just the kind of person that you enjoyed being with.
Private First Class Menchaca was married in September of last year, and he often talked of joining the Border Patrol when he finished his military service.
Mr. President, I know I speak for a grateful Nation when I say I am thankful for the service of good men and women like Private First Class Menchaca who serve our country day in and day out and who place themselves in harm's way in the service of freedom. I am glad there are people like Private First Class Menchaca, who was happy to serve his country, not knowing perhaps that that service to his country would end in the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom.
Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate so far on the amendments on the floor. I cannot help but be struck by those who would cast the only options available to America, when it comes to what is now the central front in the global war on terror in Iraq, as open-ended, unconditional commitment versus arbitrary deadlines. We have more choices than that, and it is indeed the policy of our Government at the present time not to offer open-ended, unconditional commitments, or to set arbitrary deadlines that serve as an encouragement to the enemy, knowing that if they hunker down long enough and wait us out long enough, the American people will lose their resolve and simply give up.
Mr. President, our policy is one based on conditions on the ground, and based on the sound advice of our professional military experts, people such as GEN John Abizaid, head of Central Command, and General Casey, head of the coalition forces in Iraq. These are the professional generals--those with knowledge of the facts on the ground--who are making the judgments and recommendations to the President and the Secretary of Defense and to this Congress about what our policy should be, and that policy is based on conditions on the ground.
Those who suggest that our only choice is between open-ended, unconditional commitments and arbitrary deadlines are presenting us with a false choice, one that, in the end, simply looks a lot like giving up. I speak in opposition to any proposal to impose an arbitrary deadline for the removal of our troops from Iraq and to speak about what I believe and know others of my colleagues believe is our need to win the war on terror and, while doing so, to stand beside the Iraqi people as they work to build their fledgling democracy and work to expand their growing ability to secure themselves.
The fundamental question we have before us today is: Are we going to base our military strategy in Iraq on an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal based upon defeatism, a policy of retreat, a policy of appeasement, a policy of surrender, or are we going to rely upon the military judgment of those who are currently leading us to victory in Iraq?
It is clear, as in all wars, that our Nation is being tested. This is not so much a test for our professional military, which is the preeminent fighting force in the world today and no doubt the premier fighting force that the world has ever known--there is no military force that can defeat the United States of America--the only thing that can defeat the United States of America, when it comes to the global war on terror, is America itself, if we lose the courage of our convictions, if we simply give up.
On October 11, 2002, 77 Members of this body voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I will be interested to see, when we vote on these various amendments, how many of our colleagues have simply lost the courage or conviction they displayed then, in saying it was important to remove a terrible, bloodthirsty tyrant from Iraq. I have stood on the mass burial grave sites in Iraq where at least 400,000 Iraqis lie who were victims of that bloodthirsty dictator.
We know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq more than a year before American forces went in. We all know that Saddam Hussein, with his fantasies of developing weapons of mass destruction, teamed up with terrorists and presented a clear and imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.
We have much unfinished work to do. But we must not forget to honor the sacrifices of those 2,500 people, like Private First Class Menchaca of Texas, who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Are we going to tell those brave patriots and their families that they have sacrificed in vain, that we were not really serious about our commitments both to the American people, to preserve their safety and security, as well as to our allies, the Iraqi people? I hope not.
There is no victory in arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq, and victory must remain our sole resolve. Any suggestion that a withdrawal from Iraq would somehow accelerate or pressure the Iraqi Government, and Iraqis themselves, into supporting democracy more fervently is simply inconsistent with the facts. The people who are probably most anxious for the American and coalition forces to leave Iraq--second only to the American people's desire to have their sons and daughters come home--the people most eager to see them come home, beyond their family members, are probably the Iraqi people themselves. But they understand that they are not yet prepared to defend themselves against the terrorists, against the insurgents, against the sectarian strife that is currently racking that country. Yet we find that the armchair generals in Washington, DC, are hardly in a position to determine the best military strategy. How could it be any other way? Who is in a better position to determine what that strategy should be, based on conditions on the ground, than those professional military men and women who study this issue daily, who live with it daily, and who have tremendous experience? Surely, they have a better idea about how we can win the war in Iraq than the armchair generals in Washington who are resigned to defeat and simply giving up.
The Senator from New York quoted from a Washington Post article of yesterday and suggested that the National Security Adviser in Iraq had somehow endorsed the provisions of the Levin amendment. But I want to quote one sentence that clearly refutes that suggestion. The National Security Adviser said:
This roadmap on foreign troop withdrawals is based not just on a series of dates but, most important, on achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.
In other words, Iraq's National Security Adviser understands the foolishness of setting arbitrary deadlines that have no relationship to achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq. Do we all wish that our troops could come home sooner rather than later? Of course we do. But it is simply foolishness and folly to impose an arbitrary timetable on our forces, requiring them to withdraw from Iraq before the job is done and while the going gets tough.
I have in my hands a report from the U.S. Department of State that is 19 pages long. Anybody with access to the Internet could copy this or view it online. It is called ``Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961 to 2003; A Brief Chronology.'' It is 19 pages long. I ask our colleagues who counsel retreat, who counsel self-defeatism, what do they think is going to happen if we leave Iraq prematurely, before the Iraqi security forces can defend themselves in that new democracy? What do they expect will happen? I think what we know will happen is that power void would be filled by those who are currently fighting and killing innocent people in Iraq and who, given the opportunity, would use that failed state, if we were to retreat prematurely, as a platform to plot, plan, finance, and export terrorist acts to the United States and elsewhere around the world.
It is pure folly to think that the terrorists somehow would simply give up if we decided to come home prematurely, or that Iraq could stand on its own to fight and defend itself and have any chance of nursing this fledgling democracy into full maturity.
Just yesterday I heard some of the Members on the other side of the aisle say that they, too, thought that troop withdrawal should be based upon the judgment of military commanders. But they added: As long as the generals agree with them, that withdrawal will take place within 6 months.
Another one of our colleagues who has a resolution that has been much discussed announced he would extend his initial proposal of a 6-month deadline to a 1-year deadline. I wonder what sort of wisdom he acquired over the course of a weekend that told him, no, the arbitrary deadline should not be 6 months but should now be a year. What sort of new information did he acquire that led him to the conclusion that a withdrawal in 1 year was better than a withdrawal 6 months from now?
It is clear that such arbitrary decisions have no basis in military strategy. According to one news story last week, there were colleagues of ours on the other side of the aisle who were up all hours searching for a troop withdrawal position on the war on terror that would unite their political party.
My question is: Can they really be serious? Can they really be serious that they are still searching for some unifying position? It appears that they have no unifying position, and they have no plan to lead the victory in Iraq, or to lead the American people during one of the toughest fights that our Nation has ever endured.
It is indeed a time of testing for our Nation, and we must pass the test, not just for the safety and security of the Iraqi people, but for our own safety and security, and for the safety and security of our children and our children's children.
So far, it appears that the only thing the critics can agree on is their willingness to criticize the efforts in the global war on terror, to harp on those things in a way that is not productive and certainly not helpful.
And it has the consequence, unintended or not, of undermining public support and confidence for our efforts in Iraq and in the global war on terror.
So it makes me wonder--and I am sure the American people must be wondering--are they more interested in the upcoming elections not in Iraq, but in America in November, or are they more interested in winning the global war on terror without regard to politics or elections?
It is important that we put the situation in Iraq in perspective. We are moving forward. Every single day we are making progress. The Iraqi people and their military forces are reaching out and taking responsibility in their own country and the hope we are extending to them for democracy and freedom.
Just over 3 years ago, Saddam Hussein ruled that country. We all know he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people whose only crime was to oppose his tyranny. Our military performed flawlessly in their march to Baghdad and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Then, in January 2005, the Iraqis held elections for a transitional national assembly to begin the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution. They overwhelmingly approved that Constitution in October of 2005. And then in December of 2005, they held elections for a permanent national assembly.
The Iraqi Parliament then approved the Cabinet, including the most controversial post of Defense and Interior Ministers. I remind my colleagues that the Iraqi voter turnout during last year's elections for their national assembly and referendum on their Constitution was respectively 58 percent, 77 percent, and 63 percent. It is clear that the Iraqi people are participating in their political process and building their own institutions that will eventually allow them to govern themselves and determine their own future.
On the security side, we have trained more than 260,000 Iraqi security forces and these forces are daily becoming more and more competent. They are now leading daily operations against insurgents and al-Qaida and the sectarian strife in Iraq.
We know there is a price to be paid, and I guess in the end, the difference between those who would retreat prematurely and simply give up and those of us who believe the fight is worth fighting for and the sacrifices that this Nation has made in the cause of freedom are unfortunate but worth it, the differences between those who believe war is bad and must never be fought and those who believe that war is bad but sometimes must be fought for the right reasons.
It is dispiriting that some politicians reading the polls in Iraq want us to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, and this despite they have no plan for success for winning the war or what to do in the vacuum that will be created once we give up.
We know that terrorists remain on the attack and, given our willingness to retreat, will simply take advantage of that vulnerability and attack America and other innocent people again.
In conclusion, I think the policy of retreat and defeatism and simply giving up is not one that serves our Nation well. It does not serve the interests of the Iraqi people, and it would simply be the wrong decision for this Senate to make at this time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov