National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. We are here in this wee hour of the morning. There have been a lot of accusations flying back and forth today, this evening, about why we are here and what this is about. But I do want to remind my colleagues of what this is about. The underlying legislation, the Defense authorization bill, H.R. 1585, says it very clearly here. It is:

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

That is what we are here for. We are here to do something we do every year, or that we have done every year for the past 45 years, and that is pass the Defense authorization bill. What that Defense authorization bill does is it authorizes a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. It increases Army and Marine end strength to 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. It also approves $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement list, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night vision devices, and machineguns.

The bill also authorizes $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, known as MRAP vehicles, for all

of the services' known requirements.

That is what the underlying bill would do. That is what this debate should be about. It ought to be about taking care of the needs of our men and women in uniform who we have asked, day in and day out, to do a very difficult task, and that is to protect America's freedoms around the world. We have lots of them deployed in different places around the world.

What is interesting to me, as I have listened to the debate about this particular amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment, throughout the course of the day, is I keep hearing this distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq, and how somehow Afghanistan is a good war and Iraq is a bad war. The reason is in Afghanistan we aren't having as many casualties as we are in Iraq. We are taking on a lot of casualties in Iraq. That is where they are killing our soldiers, and the reason we are taking on casualties in Iraq is because that is where our soldiers are. If we move troops to Afghanistan, they will starting killing our troops there because that is what they are and that is what they do; they are killers whose goal is to kill Americans and they are going to keep coming at us.

I do not think sometimes our colleagues on the other side see this for what it is, a titanic struggle between good and evil, between radical Islam and nations that cherish freedom.

I have to say I believe the men and women in uniform understand that when they are fighting al-Qaida, it doesn't matter where they are fighting them. They are our enemy, they are our adversary, they are the people who are out to kill and destroy us, whether that is in Afghanistan or in Iraq. They are a global terrorist network intent on destroying us and our allies.

Our young men and women in uniform deserve to have this Defense authorization bill passed so they have the funding and the equipment and the weapons and the training and everything that is necessary for them to succeed and to achieve their mission, which is to protect us from terrorist organizations and terrorist threats, such as al-Qaida.

I have also heard it said that al-Qaida is--there were a lot of quotes today from the National Intelligence Estimate about where the real threats are around the world, but I have to read for you what some of the judgements and findings were of the National Intelligence Estimate. It says:

We assess the greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of al-Qaida to attack the U.S. homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than before 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

That is the good news.

But it goes on to say:

We assess that al-Qaida will continue to advance its capabilities to attack the homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note: We assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.

In addition, we assess that its association with al-Qaida in Iraq helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks.

We assess that al-Qaida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems to be sufficient capability.

That is what the National Intelligence Estimate has to say about our enemy and what their capabilities are. And again, I have to reiterate that I think, as I have listened to this debate throughout the course of the day, that people continue to make a discrepancy between Afghanistan, the good war, and Iraq, the bad war. The problem is, it is the same enemy, it is the same al-Qaida, intent on the same objective to kill and destroy Americans. We have to fight al-Qaida every place we can to make sure they do not take that war right here and those attacks of the United States to our homeland.

Debating a change in policy in Iraq, particularly given what we just did last May, is premature, and that is why I am going to oppose the Levin-Reed amendment.

This past May, the Senate passed the 2007 Iraq supplemental which required two reports by the President. The first was released just days ago, and the second will be released in September. These reports will assess whether the Iraqi Government is making sufficient progress with respect to the 18 benchmarks. The interim July report stated that we are making satisfactory progress toward meeting 8 of the 18 benchmarks. While there is much work that remains to be done, the new strategy is still in its early stages.

We need to make sure our forces can set the conditions for that progress to continue and to succeed. There have been some encouraging signs, but we will not see the full effect of this new strategy until General Petraeus's September report. This assessment will provide a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding and what, if any, adjustments should be made.

But I reiterate, that was in May. This Senate acted on an Iraq supplemental in May requiring those two reports. We just received the first report. The final report we will get in September, and yet here we are today once again debating withdrawal resolutions before we have even given our commanders and our troops an opportunity to succeed in this new strategy.

The surge operation is intended to clear insurgent opposition so that we can protect the Iraqi population and provide the Iraqi Government a stable environment in which to conduct their business. I have said on several occasions that my support for this war is not open-ended. But we have to give General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker a chance.

We have a viable plan in place to gauge the surge operation, success of the Iraqi Government, and I cannot support a plan such as this, the Levin-Reed amendment, to abandon the legislative provisions we have already enacted. Congress cannot legislate the war strategy, nor do we have the expertise, the staff, or the constitutional authority to micromanage the war. American generals in Iraq, not politicians in Washington, should decide how to fight wars. What we are doing as legislators right now is trying to get into the middle of that very important chain of command.

As legislators, our actions on this war have not been consistent. On the one hand, we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus with the hopes that he could bring stability to Iraq; then, on the other hand, we at every turn consider Iraq withdrawal language here on the floor of the Senate. So we keep sending conflicting signals.

I would remind my colleagues that back in March, the vote to confirm General Petraeus was 81 to 0. Eighty-one Senators--no Senators objecting--voted to give him this new responsibility, to entrust him with this very difficult task. Then, in May, we said we would give him at least until September, when he would report back to us about the progress he has made. No one said the progress was going to take place quickly. We have to be realistic about the pace and scope of change in Iraq. But mandating timelines for withdrawal or other amendments like reauthorizations of the war are not the answer. We are too eager to declare the surge a failure before it has even been fully implemented.

This debate should not be about how quickly we can withdraw but how
quickly we can succeed in Iraq so that our troops can come home. Now, sadly, many of the provisions we have been discussing here on the floor of the Senate are politically motivated by legislators thousands of miles away from the battlefield.

During the course of the endless Iraq policy debate, there have been statements from the Democratic leadership such as:

We are going to pick up Senate seats because of this war.

And:

We will break them, the Republicans, because they are looking extinction in the eye.

Those are direct quotes. These are not legitimate policy statements but the sad politicization of the war on terror.

I would add to those some other statements that have been made more recently. Someone said today, earlier this evening, that this has been characterized as a publicity stunt, keeping the Senate in all night. Members on the other side have gotten up and reacted to this and said this is not a publicity stunt. Well, you have a senior Democratic aide on FOX News who said: Is this a publicity stunt? Yes. You have the majority leader saying: I do not know if we will get 60 votes, but I will tell you, there are 21 Republicans up for reelection this time. You have other statements by the majority leader saying: We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.

I do not condemn my colleagues for their legitimate Iraq policy positions. As Senators, we have a right to offer amendments. But I would again stress that I believe this is not the time to debate this question. We have made it very clear in previous legislation that the time for that debate will be in September of this year. I fear that the current Iraq policy debate taking place on the Defense authorization bill will endanger its passage. This is a bill which, as I said earlier, specifically is designed to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, provide increased authorization to purchase more MRAP vehicles, provide a 3.5-percent pay increase across the board for our troops, and further empower the Army and Air Force National Guard. We should not endanger this bill when we can have a full and comprehensive debate on Iraq in September, which is what this body, this Congress specifically directed as recently as May.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to seeing this bill pass on the floor of the Senate. I believe it would be a complete failure of leadership on our part if we failed to pass this very vital measure, while our men and women are engaged in a difficult conflict.

I will not support amendments to mandate a strategic military shift by force of law. As I have said multiple times, Congress should not, Congress must not get into the habit of interjecting itself into the military chain of command. To do so invites disaster and moves our country through the premise of conducting wars and military operations with one commander in chief to fighting wars by committee. And history has proven and shown that fighting wars by committee does not work.

Last week, I attended the funeral of SSG Robb Rolfing. Sergeant Rolfing was an Army green beret killed in action by insurgents in Baghdad. And I have to say that, again, he was a young man who was incredibly skilled and gifted, someone who had tremendous success in academics, in athletics, was an inventor, was a very gifted young man, someone who had demonstrated great leadership abilities, someone with a big heart, someone who always gave all to everything he had no matter what he did.

After September 11, he was compelled to the service of his country. As he did with everything, he wanted to do the best, and he became the best, he was the best of the best. He was a green beret. Before his tragic death, Sergeant Rolfing expressed to his family that he believed in what he was doing and there were good things happening in Iraq, that the whole story was not being told.

Well, Sergeant Rolfing's voice may be silent, but his message is not. I will honor Sergeant Rolfing's sacrifice in my own way--by allowing our troops, led by General Petraeus, to continue the work they believe in and work that I believe in.

Our obligation to the troops and our efforts in Iraq extend far beyond these benchmarks. We all want our troops to begin coming home, but we must first set the conditions for that to happen, without risking a humanitarian disaster in Iraq, sanctuaries for terrorists, or a broader regional conflict. If you do not believe what I say, there are a lot of people who know a lot more about this subject than I do who have come to the very same conclusion.

You can look at the comments of GEN Anthony Zinni, who has said:

We cannot simply pull out of Iraq, as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized and chaotic Iraq, sitting in the center of a critical region of the world, could have catastrophic implications. There is no short-term solution. It will take years to stabilize Iraq. How many? I believe at least 5 to 7.

Well, I hope he is wrong. I hope it does not take 5 to 7 years. It is very clear from the experts in this region of the world who have repeatedly stated the great risk and danger we put our troops and we put the region and we put the United States in if we abandon this important mission without finishing it.

The Iraq Study Group--the Baker-Hamilton report--has been quoted a lot on the floor during the course of this debate, sometimes selectively. But I also wish to quote for you what that particular report said.

It said:

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe in the role and the commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of troops and support.

A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions leading to a number of adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term result would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization and a threat to the global economy.

Al-Qaida would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

That is the Iraq Study Group Baker-Hamilton report, which I think also points out the very serious and disastrous risks we face, the consequences we face of quitting before this job is done.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said:

Precipitous withdrawal would produce a disaster, one that would not end the war but shift it to other areas like Lebanon, or Jordan or Saudi Arabia, produce greater violence among Iraqi factions and embolden radical Islamists around the world.

Those are people who, as I said, are incredibly knowledgeable, people who have great experience in this region of the world.

But I would like to share with you too, if I might, a letter or an e-mail I received from a soldier who has spent a good amount of time in Iraq. Here is what he said:

I hope that you do not defect from the current policy on Iraq.

And this came into my office in the last couple of days.

Having served there for over 7 months, I know first-hand that this is a fight that is worth fighting and winning. To admit defeat and pull out now would be dishonorable to those that have served. Please allow the military to conduct the war in Iraq and not the politicians. The military commanders are professional soldiers. How many of the members of the Senate have ever served in the military or even know the sacrifices that are endured each and every day? Watching the news, listening to briefings, or going and visiting for a couple of days to the war-torn nation is not ``experience.'' When the commanders say it is time to leave, it is time to leave. Please respect the input of one Marine who has seen the sacrifice and lived the sacrifice and knows what is at stake if we abandon our post.

I think his sentiments capture very effectively the way a lot of our soldiers view these events.

I cannot speak from personal experience as this soldier can. I have visited Iraq on three different occasions. I will tell you that having been there basically three different times a year apart, there has been significant progress in some areas of the country. When I went the last time, I went to Ramadi, Fallujah, and Al Anbar Province.

In the Washington Post, one of the headlines the week before we went over there said, ``Armed and Ready in Ramadi.'' Well, if you look at what has happened in Al Anbar Province--and John Burns from the New York times recently characterized that the capital city of Anbar, Ramadi, has ``gone from being one of the most dangerous places in Iraq to being one of the least dangerous places.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. My colleague from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest respect--and I have had the opportunity to travel a couple of different times to Iraq with you. I know you have been back since then and have seen the marked improvement in that region.

I know from having traveled there on several different occasions and having seen the progress that has taken place and talked with the troops on the ground, those who are there now and those who have been there, as I visit with them, both in my State and different places around the country, it is very clear that they view this to be a disconnect. They are very frustrated at the fact, as I said--the soldier whose funeral I attended, the green beret who was killed kicking down a door and was shot by an al-Qaida insurgent, before that happened expressed to his family the incredible progress he had noted and the fact that does not get adequately covered back here.

I think that is a fair statement. The letter, the e-mail I read from the marine here that I just received in the last couple of days said the very same thing. Watching the news, listening to the briefings, or going and visiting for a couple of days to the war-torn nation is not an experience. He believes that we--as do I--that we ought to let our commanders make decisions with regard to our effort there.

I would also add that I believe General Petraeus, in whom I have great confidence, will be very candid when he comes before the Congress in September, and I think we ought to give him and our troops an opportunity to succeed. The strategy has just been fully implemented as the troops have arrived there just recently. In my view it would be premature to do something which would undermine their efforts, and I think the debate we are having here on this particular amendment would do just that, if it is successful.

So I hope my colleagues will see their way to do the right thing for our troops, listen to the judgment of our commanders, listen to what our troops are saying, listen to what our enemies are saying, because I think that is a very relevant point as well. Look at what Zawahari and bin Ladin are saying about Iraq and its importance. They realize full well that this is where the battle line is drawn.

So I will, as we get to the final vote tomorrow at 11 clock on cloture, I will be voting against cloture.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Reclaiming my time, if I could answer the question of the Senator from Virginia, I talk to military personnel all the time. I have heard, as I have heard you express, a poll that the military doesn't like what we are doing in Iraq. That has certainly not been my experience in any conversation I have had with any member of the military. I would question any poll result that would conclude what you have stated, as I have heard you state, with regard to the views of our military about our work in Iraq.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source