Iraq
IRAQ -- (Senate - February 06, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, by a vote of 49 to 47, a cloture motion failed that would have essentially cut off a broader debate on the big issue of the day; that is, how are we going to deal with the situation in Iraq? I think the vote failed not because, as was reported in some newspapers, Republicans did not want to debate the issue but, rather, because we want a full debate on the issue.
The importance of this issue and the stakes associated with its outcome warrant a full debate, not one restricted by one party in the Senate. The full range of views on this issue deserves to be heard. They deserve a voice in the Senate. The American people deserve that debate. And surely, the Americans in uniform who are fighting and dying deserve that debate in the Senate.
Saturday, I attended two welcome home ceremonies for National Guard units. Both performed superbly in fighting the global war on terror. The 114th Air Wing, a National Guard unit in Sioux Falls, SD, has been deployed all over the planet. They have been in Afghanistan. They have been in Iraq--16 different places since 2001, after the terrorist attacks, in each case performing with distinction. They support an F-16 mission and have been utilized extensively. In fact, 72 percent, I believe, of all the members of that unit have been deployed someplace in the last 5 years, as we have been fighting this war on terror.
They and their families deserve a debate in the Senate about the future of that mission they have been undertaking. There has been a lot of debate around the country, a lot of debate in Washington about what to do next. We have now before us a plan which is a change of strategy. It incorporates more involvement by the Iraqi security forces in terms of their military. Also, their political structures, their Government has certain benchmarks it has to meet and economic requirements they have to comply with regarding the division, distribution of oil revenues--a whole range of things that have given us a new opportunity, a new opening to get this right with the situation in Iraq.
I believe the families of those who have served and sacrificed certainly deserve to have a full debate, not a restricted debate, in the Senate, a full debate where the full range of views, the full range of options that are held by the American people can be adequately voiced.
I also attended a welcoming home ceremony for the 147th Field Artillery, 1st Battalion, Charlie Battery, in Yankton, SD. This is a unit which has contributed mightily to the war on terror and suffered greatly. They have had four members of their unit who never came back, killed by IEDs: SGT Richard Schild, SGT Daniel Cuka, SGT Allen Kokesh, and SGT Greg Wagner--young Americans who will never be with their families again.
Also, they had a young sergeant in their unit who has suffered debilitating injuries, brain injuries that he continues to receive intensive medical treatment for and perhaps will never be the same. They had a young specialist, Brian Knigge from Plankinton, SD, who suffered injuries from which he is still recovering.
They are a unit that has suffered greatly in this war on terror. Yet there is a tremendous resilience and commitment and dedication to the mission. The area in which they were involved was the training of Iraqi security forces, specifically the Iraqi police, in the area of Baghdad, which is why it was so very dangerous for them. And the IEDs that have killed and seriously injured so many of our young American soldiers who are serving in that region did four of their comrades in. And as I said, a couple are very seriously injured.
They and their families who have sacrificed so greatly--and when I go to these events, I, obviously, have opportunities to interact with the families, with those whom these soldiers left behind. It is heartbreaking to see the separation, the consequence, and the cost of war. Yet at the same time, we have to realize when we get into a conflict like this, it is not just about what we are doing today, it is about securing a better, safer, more secure future for the next generation of Americans.
That is why this debate is so important. Many have argued what is happening today in the Middle East, in Iraq, is simply a regional conflict or a conflict between different sects within Iraq. But, frankly, we all know this--you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see what happens when these terrorist organizations are left free to prey in areas such as that, where there is not a lot of control and security. They begin to use these places as sanctuaries and safe havens to launch attacks against other places across the world, including the United States.
It is important, in this global war on terror, that we understand what the consequences and stakes of our failure are. I believe that is why, when we have a debate, we need to have a debate that reflects the full range of options and the full range of views that are available to the Senate when it comes to the future of Iraq--again, the discussion about consequences of failure, the discussion about plans going forward.
Right now we have a plan in front of us. We have a strategy that has been put forward by the President and his commanders in the region. We have a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus. We have some new troops heading into the area. There are changes in the rules of engagement. This may be our last best shot, our last best hope of being able to get this right.
We have engaged in this debate in the Senate which, again, in my view, sends entirely the wrong signal, the wrong message to our troops and to our enemies who interpret these messages that we send as a lack of resolve, a lack of will to finish what we started. More importantly, ultimately, the reason this has such great weight and gravity is that the people who are the primary receivers of the messages we send are the troops in the field. It is very difficult to say to those troops who are day in and day out putting on the uniform of the United States, performing a mission that we have asked them to do, which we have pointed out has grave consequences not only for that immediate region but for the entire free world--if you look at the arc of extremism that branches from areas such as Afghanistan and al-Qaida to areas such as some of the terrorist organizations in Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories, all these terrorist organizations and attacks are orchestrated by organizations that want to kill and destroy Americans.
We have a responsibility in the debate to make sure that when we are putting young Americans in harm's way, we are allowing a debate to go forward that examines the full range of views, the full range of options that are available to the Senate. Frankly, the one that matters the most, in terms of the options we have as a nation and as the Senate, comes down to the issue of funding. Frankly, we don't have an opportunity in this debate to talk about the real tool the Senate has when it comes to this issue; that is, the issue of funding. We have nonbinding resolutions. Everybody wants to debate nonbinding resolutions. They are nonbinding, but they are not meaningless. They send a message that we are not supportive of the mission our troops are undertaking.
But if the Senate is serious about doing its work, and if there are well-meaning and thoughtful people on the other side of the aisle who want to have this debate, then we ought to get down to what real options, what the real tools are at the disposal of the Senate when it comes to having any kind of a role in what happens in the future of Iraq. That is the issue of funding.
The leadership on the other side has said: We are not going to allow you to have a debate that includes that option, that includes the other options proposed, some from the other side that have talked about troop caps, withdrawal timelines.
Ultimately, fundamentally, if the other side is serious, let's have a debate about funding because that is the tool the Congress has at its disposal. If that is not a part of the debate, we are not serious about this debate or the range of options that ought to be heard and voiced in the Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/