Iraq Watch

IRAQ WATCH -- (House of Representatives - July 17, 2006)

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue of national security, and thank my colleagues Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Bishop of New York for all of their leadership.

I would just like to pick up where Mr. Delahunt and others left off with respect to the forgotten war in Afghanistan. I do think it is important, when we look at the situation in the world today, and we look at the violence erupting in the Middle East, we do remember what happened here in the United States back on September 11, 2001, and the origins of that attack.

As he reminds us, the attack on the United States, September 11, 2001, came from al Qaeda, al Qaeda that was sheltered by the Taliban government in Afghanistan; and that the world was with us when we responded, fully and forcefully, to those attacks of September, 2001.

In fact, the United Nations unanimously passed a resolution supporting us, our NATO allies universally supported us. In fact, they enacted a charter, part of a NATO charter saying an attack on one was an attack on all.

Yet today we are seeing in Afghanistan there has been a resurgence of Taliban activity, and at a very time when we are facing that resurgence, the United States is not providing a commitment that we need to make sure that we succeed against those who began and perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Back then, instead of focusing on that battle against those who attacked us, we did divert our resources and our energy in Iraq.

The President gave a number of reasons back then for the action we were taking. We remember well the twin pillars of the argument. He said, well, they have got weapons of mass destruction. Many of us said, let's let the U.N. inspectors have a little more time to see whether that is true or not true.

The President said, no more time, we are going in. He also said there was collaboration between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission and many others have proven that that is not true either.

But it is important to remember that the President also advanced some other reasons for going to war in Iraq. One of the arguments he made was by the United States going to Iraq. By invading Iraq, we would help build stability in the Middle East, that we would promote democracy in the Middle East, that we would reduce the influence of the hardliners in the area and increase the influence of the moderates.

In fact, just a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, in a speech before the American Enterprise Institute, here is what the President had to say. I think it is important to reflect on his words then as we look now at the terrible violence erupting in the Middle East.

He said then, and this was one of the rationales he gave us for going to war in Iraq, success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress for a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will

deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers, and other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. That was a word of his to Iran and others.

Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders.

Well, in fact, what has happened in the Middle East, since the invasion of Iraq is the opposite of what the President has said.

We know now that when we invaded Iraq, we took the lid off Pandora's box, that we set in motion longstanding grievances within different groups within Iraq, the Sunnis, and Shiias and the Kurds, and that outsiders exploited the mess that was created in Iraq, and al Qaeda, that had never operated out of Iraq, did become active in Iraq.

In fact, what happened was our invasion of Iraq strengthened the hands of extremist groups throughout the region. It made it more difficult for the more moderate Arab governments to support the United States, because people in their countries saw that the United States had invaded Iraq, and they said there was no reason for this war of choice against Iraq.

The big winner, the big winner, of course, as Mr. Delahunt pointed out, has been Iran. Iran has very successfully exploited the chaos and the vacuum that has been created in Iraq as a result of the mess there. They have gone into Iraq. They have many agents there, and they, as we know, are also exploiting the feelings of others throughout the region, especially Hezbollah. They have provided missiles to Hezbollah, missiles that are now being used to rain down on northern Israel.

Iran, Iran, as a result, has become much more of a power in the region. Iran, one of the other countries the President named as the axis of evil, has, in fact, been strengthened by the President's decision to go to war in Iraq.

You just need to read the comments of other Arab leaders in the region, from some of the more moderate Arab countries who say today, they ask, this is quoted in The New York Times, Who is benefiting, asked a senior official of one of the Arab countries, critical of Hezbollah. Definitely not the Arabs or the peace process, but definitely the Iranians are benefiting

Arab leaders have long been concerned about Iran, and the great irony of our invasion of Iraq is it has greatly strengthened the hand of Iran and greatly strengthened the hands of the extremists in the region who have been fueled by the antagonism that is unleashed toward the United States and the West by our actions there.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, I think that is absolutely right. You see this whole shift, overnight, in world opinion, again from the world being on our side and willing to fight alongside us in the war on terror that had been precipitated by the attacks of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That was one day.

After the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based on totally false premises, you saw the world turn against us. Some people here ask, Why does it matter whether people around the world like us or support our policies? Why does it matter if people in the Middle East have a positive view of the United States? Why does it matter if the Islamic world has a positive view of the United States?

Well, here is the problem. If you don't have the support of those countries, it is very difficult to get their cooperation in the war on terror. It is very difficult for them to say we are going to help you in the United States in this battle on terror. That is one problem.

The other problem is, it is a total contradiction between our efforts to promote democracy in the region, on the one hand, and to say we don't care what the people in those countries think, on the other hand. Because if we want to promote democracy, which means that we want leaders in the region to be elected by the people, then we better make sure that the people who are electing them support our goals and support our objectives.

Because if the people who are electing the leaders in Middle East countries hate the United States and want to bring harm to the United States, it is very difficult for someone running for office there to say they support our efforts and support our policy.

You saw the election in the Palestinian areas of Hamas and the extremists as opposed to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority had said, we want to work with the United States, and we want to work with Israel toward a peace process. But the people, when they had a choice, for all sorts of reasons chose the more extremist Hamas.

So the perceptions of the United States and our policies overseas have a direct bearing on our own security here at home. You cannot say you want to promote democracy in the Middle East, on the one hand, and say you don't care if they hate America, on the other hand.

If they hate America, they are going to elect leaders who reflect the will of the people, and that is bad for the United States, and yet our actions have fueled that kind of antagonism and hatred and actually made us less, not more, secure.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield?

The sad part about so much of this is that so much of it was foreseeable, if only the President and the White House had listened to people who knew what they were talking about in this very important foreign policy area.

I quoted earlier this evening the words of the President in a speech that he gave at the American Enterprise Institute on the eve of going to war in Iraq, when he talked about the fact that our invasion of Iraq would create a new era of stability in the region. It would help create a domino effect of creating new democratic movements in the region. It was sort of the big bang of creation of democratic governments in the region. That was what the President said.

But the fact of the matter is at the same time the President gave that speech, the experts were telling him the opposite, and yet they were ignored because their advice did not fit the decision that President and some of his advisers had made.

Just a month ago, Paul Pillar, who was the head of the Bureau of Near East and South Asia at the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the invasion, testified; and here is what he told the Congress just recently. He told the Congress that what is happening was, in fact, predicted in the national intelligence estimate of that time. Here is what he said. And on the situation, this is his testimony about a month ago. And on the situation that would be faced in post-Saddam Iraq, the Intelligence Community produced, on its own initiative, its assessment of the likely challenges there. It presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy, and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition. It forecasted in a deeply divided Iraqi society there was a significant chance that sectarian and ethnic groups would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it. It also assessed that the war and occupation would boost political Islam, increase sympathy for terrorist objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East.

This is the assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency before we went to war in Iraq. The people who knew the region, the people who understood the consequences of an invasion were ignored by this White House.

So we have to ask ourselves, where is the accountability in this system?

From day one in this administration, the people who got it wrong have been rewarded, and the people who got it right have been ignored. And yet what this administration says to us is ``Trust us.'' Just stay the course. More of the same.

Well, we have had years of failed policy. No one has been held accountable. What do we expect in the years ahead and the days ahead and the months ahead from an administration that refuses to hold those who get it wrong accountable and ignores all those who get it right?

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue of national security, and thank my colleagues Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Bishop of New York for all of their leadership.

I would just like to pick up where Mr. Delahunt and others left off with respect to the forgotten war in Afghanistan. I do think it is important, when we look at the situation in the world today, and we look at the violence erupting in the Middle East, we do remember what happened here in the United States back on September 11, 2001, and the origins of that attack.

As he reminds us, the attack on the United States, September 11, 2001, came from al Qaeda, al Qaeda that was sheltered by the Taliban government in Afghanistan; and that the world was with us when we responded, fully and forcefully, to those attacks of September, 2001.

In fact, the United Nations unanimously passed a resolution supporting us, our NATO allies universally supported us. In fact, they enacted a charter, part of a NATO charter saying an attack on one was an attack on all.

Yet today we are seeing in Afghanistan there has been a resurgence of Taliban activity, and at a very time when we are facing that resurgence, the United States is not providing a commitment that we need to make sure that we succeed against those who began and perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Back then, instead of focusing on that battle against those who attacked us, we did divert our resources and our energy in Iraq.

The President gave a number of reasons back then for the action we were taking. We remember well the twin pillars of the argument. He said, well, they have got weapons of mass destruction. Many of us said, let's let the U.N. inspectors have a little more time to see whether that is true or not true.

The President said, no more time, we are going in. He also said there was collaboration between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission and many others have proven that that is not true either.

But it is important to remember that the President also advanced some other reasons for going to war in Iraq. One of the arguments he made was by the United States going to Iraq. By invading Iraq, we would help build stability in the Middle East, that we would promote democracy in the Middle East, that we would reduce the influence of the hardliners in the area and increase the influence of the moderates.

In fact, just a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, in a speech before the American Enterprise Institute, here is what the President had to say. I think it is important to reflect on his words then as we look now at the terrible violence erupting in the Middle East.

He said then, and this was one of the rationales he gave us for going to war in Iraq, success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress for a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will

deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers, and other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. That was a word of his to Iran and others.

Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders.

Well, in fact, what has happened in the Middle East, since the invasion of Iraq is the opposite of what the President has said.

We know now that when we invaded Iraq, we took the lid off Pandora's box, that we set in motion longstanding grievances within different groups within Iraq, the Sunnis, and Shiias and the Kurds, and that outsiders exploited the mess that was created in Iraq, and al Qaeda, that had never operated out of Iraq, did become active in Iraq.

In fact, what happened was our invasion of Iraq strengthened the hands of extremist groups throughout the region. It made it more difficult for the more moderate Arab governments to support the United States, because people in their countries saw that the United States had invaded Iraq, and they said there was no reason for this war of choice against Iraq.

The big winner, the big winner, of course, as Mr. Delahunt pointed out, has been Iran. Iran has very successfully exploited the chaos and the vacuum that has been created in Iraq as a result of the mess there. They have gone into Iraq. They have many agents there, and they, as we know, are also exploiting the feelings of others throughout the region, especially Hezbollah. They have provided missiles to Hezbollah, missiles that are now being used to rain down on northern Israel.

Iran, Iran, as a result, has become much more of a power in the region. Iran, one of the other countries the President named as the axis of evil, has, in fact, been strengthened by the President's decision to go to war in Iraq.

You just need to read the comments of other Arab leaders in the region, from some of the more moderate Arab countries who say today, they ask, this is quoted in The New York Times, Who is benefiting, asked a senior official of one of the Arab countries, critical of Hezbollah. Definitely not the Arabs or the peace process, but definitely the Iranians are benefiting

Arab leaders have long been concerned about Iran, and the great irony of our invasion of Iraq is it has greatly strengthened the hand of Iran and greatly strengthened the hands of the extremists in the region who have been fueled by the antagonism that is unleashed toward the United States and the West by our actions there.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, I think that is absolutely right. You see this whole shift, overnight, in world opinion, again from the world being on our side and willing to fight alongside us in the war on terror that had been precipitated by the attacks of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That was one day.

After the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based on totally false premises, you saw the world turn against us. Some people here ask, Why does it matter whether people around the world like us or support our policies? Why does it matter if people in the Middle East have a positive view of the United States? Why does it matter if the Islamic world has a positive view of the United States?

Well, here is the problem. If you don't have the support of those countries, it is very difficult to get their cooperation in the war on terror. It is very difficult for them to say we are going to help you in the United States in this battle on terror. That is one problem.

The other problem is, it is a total contradiction between our efforts to promote democracy in the region, on the one hand, and to say we don't care what the people in those countries think, on the other hand. Because if we want to promote democracy, which means that we want leaders in the region to be elected by the people, then we better make sure that the people who are electing them support our goals and support our objectives.

Because if the people who are electing the leaders in Middle East countries hate the United States and want to bring harm to the United States, it is very difficult for someone running for office there to say they support our efforts and support our policy.

You saw the election in the Palestinian areas of Hamas and the extremists as opposed to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority had said, we want to work with the United States, and we want to work with Israel toward a peace process. But the people, when they had a choice, for all sorts of reasons chose the more extremist Hamas.

So the perceptions of the United States and our policies overseas have a direct bearing on our own security here at home. You cannot say you want to promote democracy in the Middle East, on the one hand, and say you don't care if they hate America, on the other hand.

If they hate America, they are going to elect leaders who reflect the will of the people, and that is bad for the United States, and yet our actions have fueled that kind of antagonism and hatred and actually made us less, not more, secure.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield?

The sad part about so much of this is that so much of it was foreseeable, if only the President and the White House had listened to people who knew what they were talking about in this very important foreign policy area.

I quoted earlier this evening the words of the President in a speech that he gave at the American Enterprise Institute on the eve of going to war in Iraq, when he talked about the fact that our invasion of Iraq would create a new era of stability in the region. It would help create a domino effect of creating new democratic movements in the region. It was sort of the big bang of creation of democratic governments in the region. That was what the President said.

But the fact of the matter is at the same time the President gave that speech, the experts were telling him the opposite, and yet they were ignored because their advice did not fit the decision that President and some of his advisers had made.

Just a month ago, Paul Pillar, who was the head of the Bureau of Near East and South Asia at the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the invasion, testified; and here is what he told the Congress just recently. He told the Congress that what is happening was, in fact, predicted in the national intelligence estimate of that time. Here is what he said. And on the situation, this is his testimony about a month ago. And on the situation that would be faced in post-Saddam Iraq, the Intelligence Community produced, on its own initiative, its assessment of the likely challenges there. It presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy, and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition. It forecasted in a deeply divided Iraqi society there was a significant chance that sectarian and ethnic groups would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it. It also assessed that the war and occupation would boost political Islam, increase sympathy for terrorist objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East.

This is the assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency before we went to war in Iraq. The people who knew the region, the people who understood the consequences of an invasion were ignored by this White House.

So we have to ask ourselves, where is the accountability in this system?

From day one in this administration, the people who got it wrong have been rewarded, and the people who got it right have been ignored. And yet what this administration says to us is ``Trust us.'' Just stay the course. More of the same.

Well, we have had years of failed policy. No one has been held accountable. What do we expect in the years ahead and the days ahead and the months ahead from an administration that refuses to hold those who get it wrong accountable and ignores all those who get it right?

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/