Iraq Resolution

IRAQ RESOLUTION -- (Senate - February 12, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia--a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an individual who has devoted his life to the support of our military--in offering, along with a number of our colleagues, this very important resolution as an amendment to the continuing resolution. There are many differing views in this body on the road ahead in Iraq, and those views are legitimate but they deserve to be debated. There is no more pressing issue facing this country than Iraq. The public is disappointed to see the Senate avoid the debate on the most important issue of our day. The current stalemate is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people. Regardless of our views on the appropriate strategy for Iraq, we have an obligation, we have a duty as Senators to fully debate this issue and to go on record on what we believe to be the appropriate strategy, the road ahead in Iraq.

I am very disappointed that the procedural wrangling on both sides of the aisle prevented that kind of full and fair debate last week. I believed strongly that we should go ahead with that debate, and I am sorry that did not occur. I hope our leaders on both sides of the aisle will work together to come up with a fair approach to debate this most important issue.

Just this last weekend, the State of Maine lost another soldier in combat in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where each and every one of us stands on the President's strategy, on whether to cut off funding, on the important issues related to this very pressing issue. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are those who agree with my position that a surge of 21,500 troops would be a mistake. There are those who believe that the surge is the right course to follow. I respect the views of Senators on both sides of the aisle and, indeed, this is not a partisan issue. But surely--surely this is an issue that deserves our full debate in the best traditions of this historic body. Surely--surely our constituents deserve to know where we stand.

I think this is so important that nothing should prevent us from going to this debate prior to our recessing. I think we should make this so important that if it is not done, perhaps we should reconsider our plans for next week. I think we should proceed with this most important debate without further delay. There are a number of worthwhile resolutions that have been brought forward. Let the debate begin.

Finally, I want to add just a couple of comments to those made by the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and that is about the importance of these resolutions. They are by no means unprecedented, as both of my colleagues have so articulately pointed out. They offer guidance to the administration. It remains my hope that if the Senate passes the resolution that I have helped to coauthor that the President will accept our invitation to take a second look at his plan. We urge him to explore all alternatives and to work with us on a bipartisan strategy to chart a new road ahead in Iraq.

As a result of my trip to Iraq in December, I concluded that we face a number of different challenges in Iraq and the strategy depends on where you are in Iraq. In Baghdad, the capital is engulfed in sectarian violence. Yes, Baghdad is in the midst of a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. To insert more American soldiers in the midst of this sectarian struggle would, in my judgment, be a major mistake. Only the Iraqis can devise a solution to the sectarian strife that is gripping Baghdad, and I think if the Iraqis had taken the long overdue political steps, if they more fully integrated the Sunni minority into the power structures, if they had passed an oil revenue bill that more equitably distributed oil revenues, if they had held the long overdue provincial elections, we would not be in the crisis in which we are today.

Indeed, that is not just my opinion, that was the opinion of General Petraeus when I asked him that question during his nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee.

By contrast to the sectarian strife that is plaguing Baghdad, the battle is very different in Anbar Province to the west. There the fight is with al-Qaida and with foreign jihadists, and there and only there did I hear an American commander ask for more troops--only in Anbar Province--and he did so in order to capitalize on a recent positive development in which some of the local Sunni tribal leaders are now backing the coalition forces against al-Qaida.

My conclusion is that we do need more troops in Anbar, but we should reallocate from troops already in the country. I personally would choose to take troops out of Baghdad and send them west, to Anbar Province, and put the Iraqis in charge, fully in charge of security in Baghdad. I fear that by inserting thousands of additional troops into the midst

of the sectarian strife in Baghdad, ironically we will ease the pressure on the Iraqi leaders to take the long-overdue steps to quell the sectarian violence, for I am convinced that the sectarian violence in Baghdad requires a political, not a military, solution.

In Basra, the third stop on our trip, I heard a British commander, a British colonel, give an excellent presentation to us. He said that initially the British and American troops were welcomed in Iraq, but as time has gone on, what he called the consent line has declined and their presence has been less and less tolerated and more and more resented.

I think perhaps the only issue on which all Members of this body can agree is that our troops have served nobly and well in Iraq, and that we need a new strategy. We disagree on the road ahead, but that is what democracy and the traditions of the Senate are all about. We should not be afraid of this debate. We should debate this issue fully and openly and let our constituents and the administration know exactly where the Senate stands.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from Virginia, I remember very well General Abizaid's testimony before the Armed Services Committee in mid-November. And as the Senator has pointed out--and he presided over that hearing--it could not have been clearer General Abizaid said that he consulted with all the American commanders and that the effect of bringing in more American troops would be to relieve the pressure on the Iraqis to step up and take control of the security themselves.

Indeed, and ironically, General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, had written an article for the Military Review in January of 2006 in which he said that one of the lessons from his tours of duty in Iraq was that you should not do too much, that you should call upon the Iraqis to take responsibility for themselves. Indeed, my experience was just as the Senator's was. About a month after General Abizaid's testimony, I was in Iraq. I talked with the commanders on the ground, and I would like to share with the senior Senator what one American commander told me.

He said that a jobs program for Iraqis would do more good to quell the sectarian violence than the addition of more American troops. He told me that some Iraqi men are so desperate for money because they have been unemployed for so long that they are joining the Shiite militias. They are planting roadside bombs simply for the money because they are desperate.

I thought that was such a telling comment, I say to my distinguished colleague, because this was from a very experienced commander who had been in Iraq for a long time.

At that moment he was not calling for more troops. None of the American commanders with whom I talked in Baghdad called for more troops. The only place where we heard a request for more troops was in Anbar Province, and as I have explained, the situation in Anbar is totally different. It is not sectarian violence. The violence is with al-Qaida, the foreign jihadists, mainly Sunni versus Sunni, and it requires a different strategy.

So my experience, when added to the distinguished Senator's, shows a consistent pattern. Whether it was the distinguished Senator's trip in October or the testimony of General Abizaid in November or my journey in December, we heard exactly the same themes, exactly the same answers to the questions of whether we needed more troops.

Finally, let me say I went to Iraq with a completely open mind on this issue, and I came back convinced that sending more troops to Baghdad would be a colossal error.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/