Iran

IRAN -- (Senate - February 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders. I know of his passion and his knowledge on the subject. That was demonstrated by his words this evening. He speaks from the heart on many issues. I know he spoke from his heart this evening about this war in Iraq. Before him, Senator Whitehouse, a new colleague from Rhode Island, read letters he received from constituents asking the same questions we are hearing across Illinois and across the country--questions about why we are in this war and how we will start to bring our troops home.

Today, in the House of Representatives, in a historic vote, by a margin of 246 to 182, the House of Representatives made it clear they do not approve of President Bush's new policy to escalate this war in Iraq.

I think you have to step back for a moment and reflect on what happened today. Four years into a war--which Senator Sanders has reminded us has lasted longer than World War I or II--we are now engaged in the first meaningful debate about the course of that war since the invasion; and 3,132 American soldiers have died, thousands have been injured, billions have been spent, and for years the Congress, in the thrall of another party, didn't have a hearing, didn't have a debate, and didn't question the policy of this war.

It is no surprise that the American people reached the limit of their tolerance and, in the last election, made it clear they want a change--not just a change in Congress but a change in the policy when it came to this war in Iraq. I was heartened after the election, particularly when President Bush asked for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. I thought that finally we were going to see a breakaway from this so-called neocon theory that dragged us into this terrible conflict. Unfortunately, what I hoped for wasn't realized. Even though I think Robert Gates, the successor of Rumsfeld, is a good man and will be a good Secretary of Defense, when it came time for the President to talk about the policies of the war and what we would do, he dug the hole deeper.

I am not a military strategist and don't profess to be. There are people in our caucus with military experience who can speak to a wise strategy and an unwise strategy. I am not necessarily one of those, nor do I profess to be. But I have been to Iraq twice--first, in the early stage, when we visited the Green Zone in Baghdad and it was so dangerous that we could not even stay overnight. In October, we were allowed to stay the night and visit with troops in the field and talk to some of the people who were working in Iraq. I will share some of those recollections in a moment.

First, let me tell you that my highest priority was to sit across the table from our soldiers, to break bread with them and talk about home and try to take their minds away from the danger of their daily lives. These men and women are the best. These are the best and bravest among us. They are volunteers to a person. They have enlisted in the services and they risk their lives every single day.

Unfortunately, many want to drag this debate into a referendum about whether we respect, admire, and honor these troops. Any honest person would tell you that you should concede the obvious: We all respect, admire, and honor these troops. Many of us believe the best way to honor them is to start bringing them safely home. When I think about what they have faced, and continue to face, and I think about these young men and women getting into these humvees or walking the streets of Baghdad and other cities, risking their lives every day, I want this to end and end soon.

What those on the other side argue is the opposite. They argue that the President is right, that sending more troops into harm's way is the best way to end the war. I could not disagree more. But the point of that disagreement is the reason the debate is necessary. It happened in the House. It should happen in the Senate.

Tomorrow, we will have a chance, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time, to vote as to whether we will have a real debate on this war in Iraq. I am not hopeful. We need the cooperation of Republican Senators to even debate the issue. Many have already announced they are opposed to this debate; they don't want it to occur. I think they are wrong. I think they are walking away from our basic responsibility as Members of the Senate.

I think those who want an escalation of the war need to answer some fundamental questions. I think they should answer the question: How many troops will be involved here? Will it be 21,000, as the President says or, as the CBO tells us, a number much larger than 21,000, which represents combat troops; they may need an equal or larger number to support those combat troops, endangering the lives of 40,000 more soldiers, not 20,000.

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said yesterday that an increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents, in his words, ``only the tip of the iceberg.' It worries me that this is the beginning of a spiraling escalation, endangering even more troops.

Army officials have also stated that virtually all of the U.S.-based Army combat brigades are not prepared to be deployed. The Army is scrambling to find the gear and personnel for units that are being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, pulling both people and equipment out of other units, scavenging for pieces of equipment that are necessary, to get them ready in some fashion for battle. General Schoomaker testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that--pay special attention to this--``I am not satisfied with the readiness of our nondeployed forces.'

We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform. We ask for their commitment to our country. We ask them to be trained and to be brave. But we should never ask them to go into battle without the equipment they need in order to come home safely.

What this general says, the outgoing Army Chief of Staff, is that that is exactly what is going to happen with this escalation. Men and women will be sent into dangerous situations without the protection they need.

On January 25, the Department of Defense inspector general released a summary report that stated that American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan experienced ``shortages of force-protection equipment, such as uparmored vehicles, electronic countermeasure devices, crew-served weapons, and communications equipment.' January 25, just a few days ago.

The report went on to say:

As a result, servicemembers were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions.

We have a special responsibility--those who make the policy in this town and those who vote for it--to keep our promise to these soldiers and their families that we will give them the training and equipment they need so they can perform their missions effectively.

The same report I referred to stated that when servicemembers were asked to perform tasks outside their usual duties, they often did not receive the equipment necessary to perform their wartime mission.

These were tasks such as training Iraqi forces, one of our most important missions, or disposing of explosives, a highly dangerous undertaking.

Today's Washington Post states that approximately 40 percent of Army and Marine Corps equipment is now in Iraq or Afghanistan or undergoing repair or maintenance.

It is inexcusable that 4 years and almost $400 billion into this war, we should be sending our troops into action without the equipment they need. Those who support the escalation and say they are supporting the troops need to be asked, and answer, the basic question: How can you support a soldier if you don't give them the equipment they need to be safe, perform their mission, and come home?

Army Deputy Chief of Staff of Force Development, LTG Stephen Speakes, recently said the Army would need 1,500 up-armored trucks for the new forces that were being sent to Iraq. But he went on to say:

We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks.

He said it will take the Army months, probably until the summer, to supply and outfit additional trucks. In the meantime, units are sharing vehicles, many of which are not properly protected so that these soldiers will be safe.

The Washington Post interviewed commanders in Iraq about the equipment situation. These commanders doubted that the new units would receive the full complement of humvees that they need.

One senior Army official was quoted as saying shortfalls would be inevitable ``unless five brigades of uparmored humvees fall out of the sky.' This official predicted some units would have to rely more heavily on Bradley fighting vehicles and tanks.

The good news is that these vehicles are very highly armored, but they may not be the best vehicles for the mission.

Our troops are the best. Shouldn't their equipment be the best? If you believe that an escalation of this war and more soldiers thrown into the crossfire of the civil war is in the best interest of America, shouldn't those same Senators step forward and demand that these soldiers be given the equipment they need?

These equipment shortfalls are more acute on the battlefield, of course, but they are echoed throughout our military, including the Guard and Reserve. I recently met with Lieutenant General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon. He reports that National Guard equipment readiness levels are at 34 percent. Guard units have about one-third of the equipment they need to be ready for battle. That is 34 percent of the equipment they need for missions at home and abroad. That is another direct cost of the war in Iraq.

I asked the general what the Pentagon's plans were to address this situation. He said there was a 5-year budget plan to bring the Guard up to a readiness level of 60 percent, which incidentally is below the level of readiness when this war began.

In the world we live in, 60 percent is not good enough if it is your son, your daughter, your brother, your sister, your husband, or your wife. It will cost another $40 billion to bring the Guard up to the readiness level that we really need. I think that is an investment we ought to make.

That is one of the real costs of this war--to make sure our troops, our Guard, have the equipment they need. These issues demand our attention, our debate, and our vote.

Tomorrow, if the Republicans refuse to cross the aisle to cooperate, to start this debate, these questions will not be addressed as part of this debate over the escalation of this war. That is not fair to these soldiers. That is not fair to their families. It certainly is not fair to the States and the people we represent.

We should have an up-or-down vote, a basic exercise of Congress's responsibility. We have offered to the Republicans an opportunity to vote not only on the measure that passed the House today but on an alternative offered by Senator McCain, who is asking we increase the troops who will be involved.

I have read many things about this war. Some of them I think are extremely insightful; some of them are troubling. Yesterday in the Washington Post, there was an article which laid out what was expected to happen in Iraq and never occurred.

When GEN Tommy Franks and his top officers got together in August 2002 to review the invasion plan for Iraq, they reflected on what would likely occur. By their estimate today, we would have 5,000 American soldiers left in that theater. Instead, we have over 130,000 and a President wanting to increase that number by 20,000 or 40,000 more. It shows that the planning and vision of the people who scheduled this invasion was seriously flawed.

I joined 22 others on the floor of the Senate voting against the authorization for this war. I felt at the time that the American people had been deceived--deceived about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, deceived about connections with al-Qaida terrorists and 9/11, which did not exist, deceived about nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds when there was no threat.

That deception that occurred in the fear and panic that still followed 9/11 led many of my colleagues to vote for this war. I was not one of them. But then came the time when I was challenged, and others, as to whether we would vote for the money to wage the war. I stopped and reflected and said if my son or my daughter was in uniform, I would want them to have everything they need to come home safely, even if I think this policy is wrong.

These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen didn't write this policy. It was written in the Pentagon and the White House. They were sent into battle with the battle plans that were handed to them, not battle plans that they wrote. They deserve a lot better. They deserve to come home. If they are going to war, they deserve the equipment they need. They deserve leadership in the White House and in Congress that is sensitive to their bravery and responds with real caring for their future.

http://thomas.loc.gov/