Nomination of Robert M. Gates--Continued

NOMINATION OF ROBERT M. GATES--Continued -- (Senate - December 06, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my honor twice to sit down in my office with the nominee to be our next Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. Both meetings have been very positive. The last was this morning.

When Dr. Gates came in early this morning, I congratulated him on his appearance before the Committee on Armed Services yesterday. He said: It is amazing what a little candor will do. That is what endeared him to the committee and resulted in this unanimous, bipartisan vote bringing his nomination to the floor. Dr. Gates was honest with members of the Committee on Armed Services. He will be honest with the American people. He understands that our efforts in Iraq are not going well and we need to change. He is a person who is dedicated to the kind of change which will be consistent with our values in foreign policy.

He told me honestly he didn't know what we should do in Iraq, but we need to examine the two primary missions we now face: establishing conditions of security on the one hand, training and supporting the Iraqis on the other. He said we may need to shift the balance between the two missions. That is not unlike the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group which were released today.

That commission delivered to the President a series of recommendations.

In just a short time, in about 2 hours, the Senate is expected to confirm Dr. Gates as the new Secretary of Defense with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Those two developments today provide an opportunity to change the course in Iraq. Of course, the ultimate responsibility is on our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. On November 7, the American people spoke out clearly of the need for change.

Dr. Gates was an original member of the Baker-Hamilton group and agrees that change is necessary. Today, that group confirmed the need to change our policy and lay out a framework to redeploy American forces. Redeployment means basically removing them from the dangers of Iraq, placing them nearby to be called on if necessary but, more importantly, starting to bring them home. Only the Commander in Chief can make that happen.

The President has said he is not looking for a graceful exit from Iraq. I would have to say that America should be looking for the right exit from Iraq. The President was asked a few months ago: When will American troops come home? He said he would have to leave that decision to future Presidents. I don't believe America wants to see troops in Iraq facing the dangers of war for the next 2 years and for many years beyond. We believe we have done a great deed for the Iraqi people in removing their dictator and giving them a chance to have their own constitution and their own government. Now it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation.

According to the Iraq Study Group, the most professional and proficient military in history has been stretched to the breaking point because of repeated deployments to Iraq. As of today, I have been given an updated figure: 2,907 American service men and women have been killed and 21,000 have been wounded. We have about 140,000 troops in Iraq today.

We certainly owe it to these soldiers, these brave men and women and their families to initiate this redeployment process as quickly as possible.

The war in Iraq impacts our defense posture worldwide. Because of Iraq, we have fewer options to respond to emerging threats in this dangerous world.

In thinking about the war in Iraq recently, like many others I was struck by how many comparisons there are to the situation of Vietnam four decades ago. There are many differences, but there are many parallels.

In October of 1964, running for President, Lyndon Johnson said:

We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.

In 1969, 5 years after that statement, there were over half a million American troops in Vietnam.

That same year, Johnson's successor, President Nixon, who had run on a campaign that he had a secret plan to end the war, said:

I'm not going to be the first American president to lose a war.

Well, both Presidents made a series of decisions that prolonged and expanded that war at enormous cost to our Nation. We have only to walk just a few blocks from this Capitol to the Vietnam Memorial to see the real cost of that war.

Perhaps like Presidents Johnson and Nixon, the Bush administration has gone through several phases on this war. First was the time of deception, when we were told there were weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, a link with al-Qaida that did not exist, and other claims about nuclear capabilities that did not exist.

Next came the phase of denial, where the President and some of his key advisers refused to recognize or adapt to the realities on the ground, dismissing the first signs of insurgency. You recall, I am sure, as I do, Vice President Cheney saying the insurgency is in its last throes, and denying its growing strength as we have seen the casualties in Iraq mount by the day. Then they downplayed and denied the outbreak of sectarian violence that now seems, for all intents and purposes, a real civil war.

The third phase has been delusion. The President apparently continues to delude himself about Iraq. I hope this Iraq Study Group will be a turning point in his thinking.

For example, in a phrase that cannot help but remind us of Katrina and FEMA Administrator Brown, President Bush recently said of Prime Minister al-Maliki: He is the ``right guy for Iraq.'' What a contrast from the memo by the President's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, which said:

The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests al-Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into actions.

When asked in October if we were winning in Iraq, President Bush said:

Absolutely, we're winning.

When Robert Gates was asked that question yesterday in his confirmation hearing, he said very clearly: No.

That gives me hope that with this Gates nomination and with this Iraq Study Group report we may have turned the corner. The Nation cannot afford deception, denial, or delusion when it comes to the situation in Iraq. Certainly, our soldiers and their families deserve better. They deserve change.

We will now have a much needed change in the Pentagon. I know Members on both sides of the aisle are eager to work with the new Secretary to make more changes. But, ultimately, it is the President's responsibility. The buck truly stops in the Oval Office. If the President recognizes the urgent need for a new direction in Iraq, we will see it happen, and soon.

The Baker-Hamilton commission has given the President a call to action, a roadmap to engage in broader diplomacy, to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis, and to redeploy American combat forces.

I hope President Bush, with the assistance of his new Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, will begin that redeployment process this January.

Consider our challenge. The Baker study group said we should have, basically, the combat forces of America gone by April 1 of 2008. With about 140,000 or 150,000 15 months before that date, we need to start seeing redeployment happen, and happen soon. Nothing could send a clearer signal to the Iraqis, the American people, and the world that we are truly moving down a new road in Iraq.

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/