Iraq

Floor Speech

IRAQ -- (Senate - March 15, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to point out some of the bitter ironies of this debate.

Since roughly January, when the new majority took charge of this Congress, there have been numerous proposals with regard to how we should conduct ourselves in Iraq. I have tried to keep track of the various resolutions that have been proposed and, as my colleagues can see, there have been, according to my count, at least 17 resolutions. They start with the Biden and Levin resolutions, the Reid-Pelosi resolution, the Murtha resolution, the Biden-Levin resolution, the Conrad funding cut resolution, a waiver plan, a timeline plan, the Feingold resolution, the Obama resolution, the Clinton resolution, the Dodd resolution, the Kennedy resolution, the Feinstein resolution, the Byrd resolution, the Kerry resolution, and then the latest, the Reid resolution we are on today.

Under this current iteration before the Senate, it says: The President shall commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructures, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

The reason I find this list of resolutions--and now with the culmination on March 15--somewhat ironic is we are beginning to see some of the signs of success of the new plan, the Baghdad security plan proposed by Prime Minister Maliki, with the support of the United States.

For example, in the Associated Press yesterday, Robert Reid wrote that bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the security crackdown that began a month ago and that execution-style slayings have been cut nearly in half.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

I want to add a few key quotes to highlight what this article says.

..... there are encouraging signs. Gone are the ``illegal checkpoints,'' where Shiite and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away members of the rival sect--often to a gruesome torture and death.

He goes on to say:

The rattle of the automatic weapons fire or the rumble of distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is beginning to return to the city's once vacant streets.

Consider this:

In the months before the security operation began, February 14, police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the capital--victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last December, more than 200 bodies were found each week--with the figure spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police reports compiled by the Associated Press. Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have dropped to about 80--hardly an acceptable figure but clearly a sign that death squads are no longer as active as they were in the final months of last year.

Mr. President, I think it is important to recognize that it has only been since February 14 that this new security plan has been operating and that Iraqi brigades and American surge forces are coming over the period of months and will not finally be deployed there for some time yet. Yet we are seeing some preliminary indications--nobody is claiming success or victory, but there are some preliminary indications that the plan is actually working. The article quotes MG William Caldwell, and I share in the sentiments he expresses when he says:

I would caution everybody about patience, about diligence. This is going to take many months, not weeks, but the indicators are all very positive right now.

We should also be cautious and patient and diligent, but we should also recognize that progress is being made with this new plan proposed by General Petraeus, embraced by the President and his new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and we should give it the chance to work.

That is precisely the reason I think this resolution is so misguided. The idea that we have simply lost and we have to give up, with no constructive alternative plan being suggested to deal with what will occur. In all probability there will be massive ethnic cleansing and a vast humanitarian crisis when the various sects continue to escalate their conflict against one another, which likely will draw in other, for example, Sunni majority nations such as Saudi Arabia to try to protect the Sunni minority in Iraq, and Iran, a Shiite majority nation, seeks to take advantage of the chaos there. Without the stabilizing influence of the U.S. and our Iraqi allies and this new Iraq security plan, it is probable that this troubled area of the world will descend into a vast regional conflagration.

What I don't understand about this resolution is that there is virtually not even a nod of the head or a tip of the hat to the fact that, as Senator Levin pointed out, there are about 5,000 to 6,000 al-Qaida foreign fighters in Al Anbar Province. This so-called phased redeployment, which is just Washington-speak for getting out of town as fast as you can, leaves a void, a power vacuum in this area where al-Qaida can basically run wild and continue as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11--to plan, recruit, train, and finance terrorist attacks and launch them against the United States.

I am sure I wasn't the only one who was chilled at the testimony released today in the newspapers of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who confessed to beheading Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, in Iraq and some 30 other terrorist attacks, including the attacks of 9/11. But how anybody in good conscience can advocate simply quitting in Iraq with the threat of 5,000 to 6,000 al-Qaida foreign fighters there, with the risk of a regional conflict, along with the tremendous body blow that would cause to the American economy, I don't know. I just don't understand it.

I was also surprised to see in today's New York Times some comments by Senator Clinton, who, of course, is running for the Democratic nomination for President. Notwithstanding this resolution and her stated support for the resolution, she is quoted as saying she foresees a ``remaining military as well as political mission'' in Iraq. If elected President, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight al-Qaida--I am glad to hear that--deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds, and possibly support the Iraqi military.

It is a little troubling. While she says that would be her goal, it appears to be inconsistent with this resolution that she also says she will vote for. This is another quote in the article of March 15 in the New York Times. She said:

So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser.

This article says:

Asked if her plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for ``a limited number'' of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct ``targeted counterterrorism operations.''

I don't know how that is consistent with this resolution. I don't know how it is consistent with her other statement that she made on the campaign trail when she said:

If we in Congress don't end this war by January 2009, as President, I will.

It is speculated in this article that what she is proposing is a mirror image of a plan advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, a Pentagon comptroller under Donald Rumsfeld. He estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required for the kind of plan she describes, as opposed to the 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq once the surge is complete. But I wonder whether it is wise to embrace a plan proposed by the Pentagon's comptroller--in other words, the Pentagon's numbers cruncher, the budget man, as opposed to the plan proposed by GEN David Petraeus, who is an acknowledged expert in counterinsurgency matters, the very kind of plan that is being executed now with the Baghdad security planning--clearing, holding, and building. I cannot understand how you would embrace a plan essentially proposed by the Pentagon's bookkeeper as opposed to the Pentagon's best generals.

I see the distinguished whip on the Senate floor. I will yield the rest of our time to him.

I cannot understand why our friends on the majority side cannot make up their minds. We have 17 resolutions and counting. It seems as if each day brings a different plan but none to address the most urgent needs for our national security in the Middle East.

Exhibit 1

Some Progress May Mean Hope for Baghdad
(By Robert H. Reid)

Baghdad.--Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crack down began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.

The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets--favored targets of car bombers.

There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

But while many Iraqis are encouraged, they remain skeptical how long the relative calm will last. Each bombing renews fears that the horror is returning. Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents are still around, perhaps just laying low or hiding outside the city until the operation is over.

U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation a success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of the five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the streets, and the full compliment of American reinforcements is not due until late May.

U.S. officials say that key to the operation's long-term success is the willingness of Iraq's sectarian and ethnic political parties to strike a power- and money-sharing deal. That remains elusive--a proposal for governing the country's main source of income--oil--is bogged down in parliamentary squabbling.

Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs.

Gone are the ``illegal checkpoints,'' where Shiite and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away members of the rival sect--often to a gruesome torture and death.

The rattle of automatic weapons fire or the rumble of distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is beginning to return to the city's once vacant streets.

``People are very optimistic because they sense a development. The level of sectarian violence in streets and areas has decreased,'' said a 50-year-old Shiite, who gave his name only as Abu Abbas. ``The activities of the militias have also decreased. The car bombs and the suicide attacks are the only things left, while other kinds of violence have decreased.''

In the months before the security operation began Feb. 14, police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the capital--victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last December, more than 200 bodies were found each week--with the figure spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police reports compiled by The Associated Press.

Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have dropped to about 80--hardly an acceptable figure but clearly a sign that death squads are no longer as active as they were in the final months of last year.

Bombings too have decreased in the city, presumably due to U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons caches and to more government checkpoints in the streets that make it tougher to deliver the bombs.

In the 27 days leading up to the operation, 528 people were killed in bombings around the capital, according to AP figures. In the first 27 days of the operation, the bombing death toll stood at 370--a drop of about 30 percent.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made a show of confidence Tuesday by traveling out of Baghdad for meetings with Sunni tribal leaders and government officials in Ramadi, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents.

``I would caution everybody about patience, about diligence,'' U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell said Wednesday. ``This is going to take many months, not weeks, but the indicators are all very positive right now.''

Figures alone won't tell the story. In Vietnam, generals kept pointing to enemy body counts to promote a picture of success even when many U.S. soldiers and civilian officials realized the effort was doomed.

True success will be when Iraqis themselves begin to feel safe and gain confidence in their government and security forces. Only then can the economy, long on its heels and with unemployment estimated between 25 and 40 percent, rebound and start providing jobs and a future for Baghdad's people.

A long-term solution also must deal with the militias that sprang up after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Much of the relative calm may be due to a decision by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to remove his armed militiamen, known as the Mahdi Army, from the streets. Al-Maliki warned the young cleric that he could not protect them from the Americans during the offensive.

U.S. troops rolled into the Mahdi stronghold of Sadr City on March 4 without firing a shot--a radical change from street battles there in 2004.

Some Mahdi Army fighters may have left the city. But Iraqis who live in Shiite neighborhoods say many others are still around, collecting protection money from shopkeepers and keeping tabs on people--albeit without their guns.

When American patrols pass by, Mahdi members step into shops or disappear into crowds until the U.S. troops are gone. Sunni militants remain in some areas of the city too, although last year's sectarian bloodletting drove many Sunnis from their traditional neighborhoods, depriving extremists of a support network.

Sunni militants, meanwhile, are believed to have withdrawn to surrounding areas such as Diyala province where they have safe haven. The U.S. command sent an extra 700 soldiers Tuesday to protect the highways leading into the capital from there.

If militants from both sects are indeed lying low, that suggests they may have adopted a strategy of waiting until the security operation is over, then reemerging to fight each other for control of the capital.

Conscious of that possibility, new U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus and other senior generals avoid setting a date for when the operation would end. They insist the extra troops will stay as long as they are needed.

And they say the military will continue to track down key militia and insurgent figures, in hopes of crippling the leadership of insurgent groups before they attempt to re-emerge.

``You generally think that if you're going to achieve (the desired results), that it would need to be sustained certainly for some time well beyond summer,'' Petraeus told reporters last week.

The No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, has recommended that the buildup stretch longer, into the early months of 2008--if Congress will provide the money.

But positive trends in Iraq have proven hard to sustain. Hopes for reconciliation are quickly shattered. There have been a series of failed security initiatives. With so many uncertainties, public opinion appears mixed.

``We gain nothing from this government. No change,'' said Abu Zeinab, a Shiite father of two in Baghdad's Hurriyah district. ``Today is like yesterday. What is the difference?''

In eastern Baghdad, one homeowner whose house was seized by the family of a Shiite militiaman gained enough confidence to tell them to leave or he would turn them in to the Americans--unthinkable only a few weeks ago.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source