Iraq War Resolution

Floor Speech

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION -- (House of Representatives - February 14, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Skelton for yielding time, and I rise today certainly in support of this resolution.

I rise also today in support of a strong U.S. military, a military that is ready to combat terrorists and a military that is ready for the challenges of this century. And for these reasons, I have to oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and support the resolution before us.

The President's announcement to add 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq is a step in the wrong direction. The American public does not want an escalation of the Iraq war, especially without an explanation of what we are trying to achieve. The President promised a new approach, but more troops does not equal a new way forward.

The United States has a choice. We can stay in Iraq to keep a lid on Iraq's civil war or we can devote enough time and attention to fighting terrorists wherever they are and securing a military that is prepared to protect our national security.

I choose the latter. At a time when we need to manage our strategic risk in the face of terrorists and nuclear uncertainty, at a time when our enemies are numerous, unpredictable and dangerous, this administration has made the wrong choice.

I believe this approach damages our military readiness today and damages our ability to prepare for threats in the future.

This war has strained our ability to train here at home with functional equipment. It has strained the ability of our services to recruit for the future. It has strained our ability to prepare a defense budget that can prepare us for 21st century threats.

Every State in this Union, including Washington State, has National Guard units that are depleted. They do not have the equipment that they need to train and are forced to leave equipment in theater, making it harder to do their job at home.

In Washington State, 90 percent of the Army National Guard and 65 percent of the Air National Guard have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and performed admirably and honorably; but at home, they only have 55 percent of their required equipment on hand, equipment that is integral to the training of these Guardsmen.

The President's escalation plan will not solve these problems. It will make them worse. The President's plan will not decrease our strategic risk. It will exacerbate it.

Units at home are struggling just to meet the training requirements necessary to deploy to Iraq. With this escalation plan, units at home will suffer as the Army and Marine Corps are forced to take more of their equipment to supply the additional brigades going into Iraq, depleting their training opportunities.

Equipment shortages at home are what we hear about most, but the war's effect on our prepositioned equipment abroad may be as serious a threat.

The Army relies on prepositioned sets of equipment in strategic locations around the world. This equipment ensures that our troops are able to deploy at a moment's notice. A large portion of this equipment has been taken to support the troop increase, increasing the chance that equipment will not be available in the case of an emerging crisis.

I personally have lost confidence in the Iraqi Government to fulfill its commitments to the United States. I want our women and men in the military to know that we have a strategy that is worthy of their individual actions and sacrifice and that they will have the resources necessary to do their job. But most of all, I am concerned that the President's decisions have led us away from our greatest national security threat; that is, fighting terrorists who will do us harm.

Make no mistake, while some of us support this escalation and some of us oppose it, all of us can agree on the need to support our women and men in the military, honor their commitment, and make sure they get the resources they need to do their jobs.

I recently heard from a friend of mine who, I will conclude with this, who served in the Army Reserve in Iraq and likely will return. This is what he said.

``Here I am, socially and culturally aware of the greater world. I am educated and a father of two beautiful children, children who have not been touched by war or tragedy. People tell me I should get out of the military because I have done my part, I don't need to serve again; but I do because if not me, then whom? I serve as an instrument of the State because I believe in the institution which is the Army and in turn with what that institution supports. As an officer, I have a duty to provide leadership to those under my command, and if it means I give my life at the expense of my children and all the things I love and hold so dear in life, then that is what I will have to do. I do not seek this action blindly. I am cognizant of the dangers inherent in soldiering and understand the risks and rewards involved. As a soldier, I will always pray for peace, but in a time of war, I am willing to move towards the sounds of the guns. I will fight for the Army and I will fight for my country, but most importantly, I will fight so others will not have to experience the mental anguish and soul-crushing reality which is war. For in the end, I know that I can love the Army all I want, but the Army and this country will never love me back, no matter what the sacrifice. I am at peace with this dichotomy.''

We owe my friend and his brothers-in-arms the training and equipment he deserves, and we owe him a national strategy that honors our military and our safety. That is why I ask everyone to vote for H. Con. Res. 63 to show that this escalation is a step in the wrong direction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source