To Revise United States Policy On Iraq--Motion To Proceed
TO REVISE UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - March 14, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleagues from Rhode Island and Michigan for yielding me some time. I appreciate it. Their expertise in this area has been invaluable not only to the Senate but to all Americans. I could not think of two people who have shown light more on this issue than the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Rhode Island.
Where are we now, Mr. President? Somehow--and there will be many debates as to how--what we are doing in Iraq has largely evolved into fighting a civil war, into patrolling a civil war, into policing a civil war, and, yes, into fighting it at times. The age-old enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites, of course, has exploded. Once Saddam Hussein was gone, it was perhaps inevitable that it would occur, particularly without any real authority in large parts of the country.
Most of what our soldiers are doing, and most of those who come back from making the ultimate sacrifice, dying or making a large sacrifice by being wounded, are doing is not fighting terrorism but, rather, policing, patrolling, and even fighting in a civil war. That is not what the American people bargained for. That is not what President Bush stated when we began going into Iraq. In fact, he has never stated that.
Now they say we need to bring order to allow their government to work, but that is a fallacious argument for two reasons. First, we may bring temporary order to Iraq but, make no mistake about it--you don't have to be a Ph.D. in middle eastern studies to realize that the minute our troops leave, whether it is 3 months or 3 years, the fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites will continue. We will have lost lives, and men and women will have lost limbs, but not much will have changed--even in the medium term.
Second, the absurdity of what we are doing is shown by this: We are sending more troops to create a temporary peace to bolster a government that we don't trust, like, or believe in. Prime Minister Maliki is almost universally regarded poorly, not just at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue but at the other end as well. Their government seems incompetent. The government seems unable to accomplish the most basic things. The government, of course, created a terrible drama, almost, when they could not complete the execution of Saddam Hussein in a way that would have conformed to how it should have been done. So their government is incompetent. It is also controlled, in large part, by someone we do not like, Sadr. The Sadr party is the Prime Minister's base. He cannot do anything, even should he want to, in terms of actually bringing peace and creating a government that is friendly to America.
So here we are with this escalation, a surge to bolster a government we don't like or trust. Here we are, instead of fighting terrorism, policing a civil war. The American people know that. We have seen all of the data and all of the polls. The overwhelming majority does not support the President in Iraq. So we need a change in strategy. Substance dictates it, people see it, and our job in the Senate is to do that. That is what we are attempting to do in this debate.
The proposal that most of us on this side of the aisle are behind is a very simple one. We require the President to change strategy. Instead of policing a civil war, fighting a civil war, our troops should have the far more limited mission of protecting us in America from terrorism. That means that if al-Qaida sets up a base anywhere in Iraq, we should take it out--do what it takes to take it out. But it doesn't mean that our soldiers should be patrolling the streets of Baghdad simply because the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting with each other. That will require a change in mission and will require fewer troops, and those troops need not be in harm's way. It makes eminent sense.
We set a deadline of a little more than a year from now, during which time the mission will have changed. The number of troops will be greatly reduced. We don't set a number. That is up to the President. It is our job in the Congress to debate missions and the broad context of foreign policy and then, should we pass a law, have the President carry out the details.
Now, some on the other side have said that any debate means you are not supporting the troops. Well, I have talked to the troops--to generals and enlisted men and women. They want debate, Mr. President. The more demagogic the other side is, saying if there is a debate, you are not supporting the troops--frankly, that is not the American way. Of course, we debate issues. In fact, their view is that basically the only way to support the troops is to rubberstamp the President's policy. We don't agree with that. We are supporting the troops. We are supporting the troops when they are in the field by trying to get them the body armor and humvees and blood-clotting bandages they have not had. We are supporting them when they come home by trying to fully fund the Veterans' Administration. Don't talk to us about supporting the troops. We are walking the walk and putting our money where our mouth is.
So, sadly, our colleagues on the other side, instead of joining us in this debate, often seek to thwart it, as they did last time. I hope they will not do that again because America is demanding debate. We hope they will come together with us, as we did last year in the Levin-Reid resolution, in a bipartisan change of mission. That is what the people are asking for.
I know my colleagues on the other side are in an uncomfortable position. They are torn between the policy of our President, their party leader, and what their constituencies want. By the way, the constituencies across America want this. I have seen the polling data. It is not just in places such as Rhode Island, New York, and Pennsylvania where the people are asking for a real change in strategy; it is also in places such as Kentucky, North Carolina, and Mississippi. It is throughout America. They are not doing it because they don't support the troops or for some nefarious reason. They are doing it for a reason that is as plain as the noses on our faces: what we are doing now is not working--whether it be with 140,000 or 150,000, 160,000, or 200,000 troops.
So we are here in the hallowed tradition of our Constitution to debate what we are doing in foreign policy and war policy and whether it is right. We will stand together on this side of the aisle and state that, as patriots who support our troops, we desperately need a change in strategy and in mission. We will bring up this issue on the floor of the Senate again and again and again, until our colleagues on the other side join us, until our colleagues on the other side understand that the wishes of their constituencies are for a change in strategy, until our colleagues on the other side have the courage to tell the President that on this issue he simply is wrong. That is part of the hallowed tradition of this country. We are proud to do what we are doing.
Mr. President, I hope and pray that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow this debate to go forward, that they will put forward their ideas, and we will put forward ours. Debate it we will and debate it we must. I hope and pray that debate starts to yield the change in strategy that our troops in Iraq, our people in America, the Iraqi people, and the people of the world so desperately need.
With that, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for the time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/