On the floor of the US Senate - June 21, 2006

Mr. HARKIN: I thank the President. I apologize to the President for having to sit there at this late hour. It wasn't my doing. But I did want to speak on this issue. It is one of major importance, and one about which I have not spoken on the Senate floor previously. So I beg the indulgence of the Chair at this late hour.

On May 3, I introduced a resolution in the Senate [Concurrent Resolution 93] that offered a clear break from our current counterproductive course in Iraq allowing our Armed Forces to return to their focus to defeating the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001. The resolution would do three things. First, it states that the United States should not maintain a permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq. Second, it states that the United States should not attempt to control Iraq's oil. And, third, it states that the United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq's constitution-making process, or December 31 of 2006, whichever comes first.

My resolution is identical to the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Mike Thompson of California with at least six Republican cosponsors. As far as I know, it is the only Iraqi resolution introduced that has bipartisan support. So I introduced the same measure here in the Senate. I continue to believe that only this resolution offers a clear, unambiguous, principled stand--a stand that can produce the results that we all want. Only when the Iraqi Government faces a firm timetable for U.S. redeployment will it have the incentive to resolve its internal differences and stand on its own two feet. And only when our government faces a firm timetable will it make urgent policy changes necessary to right our course in Iraq. President Bush has it exactly backwards. He said that our Army will stand down only as the Iraqi Army stands up. The truth is that the Iraqi Army and government will stand up only when it is clear that the American military is committed to standing down by a date certain.

My resolution is a clear, unambiguous statement of our intention to move beyond the strategic blunder of Iraq which has distracted us from the fight against those who attacked us on September 11. Only such a clear break will allow us to recommit our military and intelligence resources to the unfinished task of crushing al-Qaeda and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

We need this new decisive direction because President Bush is unwilling to change his current policies in Iraq which are manifestly a failure. Let us be clear. Staying the course effectively means stay forever. It means to stay and pay and stay and pay and stay and pay.

Already we have paid with more than 2,500 dead and more than 18,000 wounded. We will continue to pay a terrible price in terms of lives and treasure, not only to the end of President Bush's term but well into the term of his successor and beyond. And for what? For a failed approach in Iraq that in the judgment of a large majority of national security experts is damaging America's national security and making us less safe.

Because I believe we need a new direction, I will vote for both the Levin-Reed amendment and the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer amendment. I commend my friend and my colleague, Senator Kerry, for his leadership on this issue. I was here this evening listening to him. I listened to his colloquy with the Senator from Virginia. I think it is clear that Senator Kerry is on the right course. Also, Senator Levin, I believe is also on the right course. So I will support both, and I do so because I believe that both are better than what we have now.

But I also want to be clear that neither one is going to pass. We know that. So we shouldn't agonize over which one we can support. It doesn't matter what we do; it won't become law.

So why are we doing this? We are doing it because we must put pressure on the President. We do it because we need to speak for the American people who are way ahead of us, way ahead of the President, way ahead of the White House, and way ahead of the Congress on this issue. They know what we are doing in Iraq--costing $7 billion a month, $9 million an hour, 2,500 dead, 18,000 maimed and injured--they know it is wrong. They know we have been misled into this war.

My position is simply that anything we can do to give voice to the American people that will hopefully pull the President back to a more rational, reasonable and sane policy, anything that will do that I will support.

I realize that some, including the President's top political adviser, are eager to politicize this issue in an election year. They can't wait to frame this as a debate between those who support our troops and those who want to retreat, between those who want to fight and those who want to surrender. This is outrageous, and it is false. It is the same inflammatory demagoguery that tore our country apart during the Vietnam War. Just as we were misled into the Vietnam War, so we were in Iraq. All you have to think is weapons of mass destruction equals the Tonkin Gulf. Weapons of mass destruction are to Iraq what the Tonkin Gulf was to Vietnam. Both misled us into a drastic, terrible war. Just as the Nixon administration was bent and misused intelligence to fit a preconceived belief on Vietnam, so would President Bush in Iraq. Just as we heard the arguments in the early 1970s about Vietnam, that we have to fight the Communists there or we will be fighting them here, now we hear that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq before we fight them here.

Just as we said in Vietnam we will have to support the government because it is a free government elected by 80 percent of the people, so now we hear the same thing about Iraq and terrorists. The echoes are resounding about what we hear from this administration and their policies for Iraq and what we heard for Vietnam.

Let us be clear about what I think this debate is really about. It is about charting a smarter, more focused offensive against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11. It is about acknowledging that Iraq did not attack us on September 11, but that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a costly distraction from our fight against those who did attack us. It is about giving the government in Iraq incentives to get its act together; to overcome sectarian divisions and stand up a viable, self-sustaining army.

This debate is about acknowledging that staying the course is no virtue if the course we are on is demonstrably wrong. Indeed, it is about acknowledging that staying the course means stay and pay. Stay and pay. It means that our Armed Forces will continue to stay and pay dearly with more than 20,000 already killed, maimed, and wounded. For our beleaguered taxpayers, it means stay and pay more of their hard-earned tax dollars and the debt that is being piled on for our children and grandchildren to pay--$350 billion already on Iraq and counting.

The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better than this. Instead of putting bumper-stickers on our cars saying "support our troops,'' let us actually support our troops. Let us give them some hope for a way forward from the current stalemate and quagmire. They have brilliantly completed the task they were sent to Iraq to accomplish. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has been deposed. We are certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction--and never did. And the Iraqi people have a constitution and a democratically elected government. To our troops goes great credit. They have achieved these things despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders here in Washington. President Bush himself has acclaimed the installation of a permanent Iraqi Government as a historic "turning point.'' So the question is, why aren't our troops returning? Why are we still in Iraq with no commitment whatsoever even to a graduated redeployment? Why has President Bush stated that we will be in Iraq at least through the end of his administration and into his successor's administration? Why are we building what appears to be permanent military bases? Why are we in the process of building a gigantic new United States embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size of nearly 80 football fields?

What message does it send when the House Republican leadership two weeks ago insisted on stripping from the emergency supplemental appropriations bill Senate-passed language asserting that we will not build permanent bases or attempt to control Iraq's oil? We passed that in the Senate. The House Republicans took it out. What message does that send to the insurgents and al-Qaida and the terrorists who would do us harm? None of these things give the impression that the United States plans on winding down our military and civilian presence or relinquishing our grip on Iraq. To the contrary, it is easy to see how ordinary Iraqis as well as people across the world view this as the behavior of a conquering power that has no intention of leaving. Unfortunately, this perception creates continuing resentment. It feeds anti-Americanism. It continues to give powerful fuel to the insurgency, both in terms of motivation and recruitment, and it puts our American Armed Forces at greater risk.

It has now been more than 3 years since President Bush's speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. On that occasion, with a giant banner behind him a claiming "Mission Accomplished,'' President Bush said triumphantly, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''

But today, 133,000 troops remain on the ground. President Bush again and again has signaled that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is open-ended and of indefinite duration. This has given rise to suspicions that the United States has long-term designs on Iraq and its oil and deprives the Iraq Government of the incentives to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own feet. With the war in Iraq now in its fourth year, it is clear that the present course is not a strategy for success. It is a strategy for continued stalemate and stagnation. As I said, stay the course means stay and pay. Stay and pay. One-third of a trillion dollars we have spent so far and counting.

Indeed, I fear that staying the course also means stay forever--and this sends exactly the wrong signal. It stokes the insurgents who believe that the U.S wants a permanent military presence in Iraq. Don't think for a second that they do not know and they aren't putting out the word that the Republican leadership in the House two weeks ago stripped the language out of the Senate bill which stated that we were not going to have permanent bases and we will not control their oil. Don't think for a minute that they haven't broadcast that, that they aren't using that as a recruiting tool. Of course they are.

When President Bush says it will be through his administration and into his successor's administration before we decide what to do in Iraq, that is a powerful recruiting tool for the insurgents and the terrorists. Our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq as long as it takes has had the effect of taking away any incentive for the Iraqi Government to resolve its internal division and get its act together. Parliamentary elections were held way back in early December. Has Baghdad descended into vicious sectarian violence? It took the Iraqis nearly 7 months to choose a prime minister and to fill all the ministries. Now, as the Iraqis face a deadline for U.S redeployment, there is no way they would have squandered 6 months before forming a government, nor would the Iraqis be dragging their feet in standing up a viable, self-sustaining army and police force. I just heard the Senator from Alabama quoting a general. A lot of generals have been quoted around here. I guess I can quote a general too. How about General Casey, our commander in Iraq, who told the Senate last September. He said, "Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant." Last September, General George Casey said that. BG Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, put it this way, "I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that this insurgency is not going to be settled through military options or military operations. It is going to be settled in the political process."

Nor, I must add, is there a military solution to most of the critical problems confronting Iraq--sectarian strife, out-of-control crime, rampant corruption, widespread unemployment, chronic shortages of electricity and water and gasoline, and on and on. There is not a military solution to that; it is a political solution. The Iraqi people also believe that a redeployment of U.S. forces would give a boost to the political process. According to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland, more than 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. When asked what the impact of a withdrawal of U.S. troops would be, large majorities of Iraqis believe that insurgent attacks will decrease, sectarian violence will decline, and the sectarian factions in Parliament will be more willing to cooperate. That is what a majority of Iraqis believe. Yet somehow this administration believes differently. We all hope the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders are sincere in their stated desire to avoid an all-out civil war. Prime Minister Maliki has formed a national unity Cabinet. As I said, President Bush has hailed this new Government as a turning point. We hope that is the case. But whether or not Mr. Maliki is willing or able to make good on his pledges, it is certainly time for a turning point in U.S. policy in Iraq.

The coming months must be a period of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty. It is time to hand off security responsibilities to the Iraqi Army and police, to redeploy most of our U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq by the end of this year. This strategic redeployment must involve converting our vast military presence on the ground in Iraq to a quick reaction force, staged in countries bordering Iraq, countries that share our interest in a stable Iraq and that view our military presence in the region as a stabilizing force. This substantial over-the-horizon force would be used to strike at al-Qaeda and its affiliates whether in Iraq or elsewhere. These forces would be able to respond in a timely manner, as they did two weeks ago in targeting and killing Al-Zarqawi.

I would expect, as our troops withdraw from Iraq, this would free up U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Other troops would be available to send to the emerging terrorist threats in countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, which threaten to become major breeding grounds for terrorists. The harsh fact is that the Iraq war has led to a decline in the overall readiness of U.S. ground forces. It has decimated our capacity to put large numbers of boots on the ground were we to face an emergency elsewhere, such as on the Korean peninsula. At a Senate hearing last year, Gen. Richard A. Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said, "What keeps me awake at night is what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?"

He stated this in the context of a discussion about whether we could sustain the operational tempo of deployments at the rate we have had since the beginning of the Iraq war. For all the military superiority we displayed in the invasion of March 2003, 3 years later, a guerilla conflict is grinding away at our military manpower and equipment.

We need to redeploy from Iraq in order to reset and reequip the force--ground forces in particular--so they are prepared for a more focused campaign against the terrorists who attacked us and continue to threaten us.

At the same time we are redeploying our Armed Forces, we need to foster sustained diplomatic engagement, working with Middle Eastern nations to facilitate rival Iraqi factions in reaching a political settlement. Iraq's neighbors have a profound stake in this stability, but they currently have no incentive to get involved. Once it is clear that the United States is leaving, those nations will be highly motivated to facilitate a coming together of the factions within Iraq.

Some say that U.S. forces in Iraq are the only thing that stands between the Sunnis, Shiites, the Kurds, and all-out civil war. I disagree. It is the ongoing presence of U.S. forces and the prospect that we will be in Iraq as a babysitter for years to come that has delayed progress on the political front. It is the ongoing presence of U.S forces and statements by this President that we will be there for as long as it takes, it is actions such as were taken by the House Republicans in stripping that language out we put in that said we are not going to have permanent bases, we are not going to control the world, it is those actions which have delayed progress on the political front and have given the insurgents the narrative, the story, the recruiting tool they need.

Our presence in Iraq is a propaganda victory and recruiting tool for the insurgency in Iraq and for Islamic extremists around the world. The insurgents and jihadists are threatened by the overwhelming perception in the Arab world that the U.S. military is an occupying force, that we are building what appears to be permanent bases, that our continuing presence in Iraq is all about controlling oil. Meanwhile, let's be clear on what continuing our current policy of stay and pay will entail. The Congressional Research Service reports that we are now spending $6.4 billion a month in Iraq, up sharply from last year. That is $9 million an hour every hour of every day. And we are doing so at a time when our budget, the budget put through by the Republicans who control the Congress, is slashing funds for education, cancer research, health care, and other essential needs at home. The budget this year will mean we have 1,100 fewer research grants from the National Institutes of Health than we had 3 years ago. That is the path we are on. We have spent a grand total of about $350 billion in Iraq.

As I have said, more than 2,500 troops have been killed, 18,000 wounded. More than 8,500 of the troops are wounded so seriously they were listed as wounded in action, not to return to duty. Are we going to stay and pay for another 3 years, spending another $300 billion, sacrificing more American troops, with more killed, more maimed and injured for life? Is that what we mean by supporting the troops? Is that what we mean, to stay more, with more killed, more maimed? Why in the world would we want to stay on a course that is so clearly counterproductive, so clearly a failure?

Last week, the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy Magazine released the results of their survey of more than 100 of America's top terrorism and national security experts from across the ideological spectrum. The results show fewer than 2 in 10 believe the United States is winning the war on terror; 87 percent believe the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on our national security. So 87 percent of the top 100 national security experts around America say Iraq has had a negative impact on our national security.

Last Thursday, the Department of Defense issued a highly partisan "debate prep book,'' designed to help Republicans defend the war in Iraq. Likewise, the President and Vice President are staying the course with their endless happy-talk about progress in Iraq, about how democracy is on the march. But the facts on the ground tell a different story. I believe we should base our policy choices not on happy talk but on facts on the ground.

Clearly, by preemptively attacking Iraq, we have committed a major strategic error in the larger war against the terrorists who attacked us. Simply put, we took our eyes off the ball. We deferred our military and intelligence resources away from Afghanistan, away from the hunt for bin Laden. The consequences were plain to see. It is no coincidence today the Taliban has powerfully resurfaced in southern Afghanistan despite President Bush's claim on September 27, 2004, that "the Taliban no longer is in existence.'' Say again? As fighting in Afghanistan has intensified over the past 3 months, the United States has conducted 340 air strikes in Afghanistan, more than twice as many as the 160 air strikes carried out in the war in Iraq during the same period.

Meanwhile, while we have been distracted in Iraq, al-Qaeda-like Islamic fighters have retained control of the Somalia capital of Mogadishu and have dealt a major blow to our counterterrorism efforts in the horn of Africa. Nor is it a coincidence that Osama bin Laden is still at large, still directing al-Qaeda operations, still encouraging jihadists around the world.

Nearly five years ago, before a joint session of Congress, President Bush pledged he would "bring Bin Laden to justice or bring justice to bin Laden.'' That was five years ago. President Bush has done neither. Instead, he allowed bin Laden to escape and has gotten the U.S. military bogged down in a civil war in Iraq--a huge strategic gift not only to bin Laden but also to Iran. Not only has our open-ended Iraqi entanglement taken the heat off the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, it has given them a propaganda victory and, as I said, a major recruiting tool. The sooner we acknowledge the strategic blunder and take steps to reverse it and the sooner we redeploy our military and strategic assets to confront our real enemies, the better off we will be.

The resolution I introduced setting a firm timetable for redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq is about accelerating the emergence of Iraq as an independent nation willing to stand on its own feet. But it is also about the unity and security of the American people. This misbegotten, misguided, mismanaged war is dividing our Nation. I already mentioned how the President's top political strategist is planning to inflame passions in the war on Iraq in the months between now and the election. Again, I state, it is eerie, eerie how defenders of the Iraq policy, of our policy in Iraq are sounding exactly like defenders of Nixon's policies in Vietnam.

It is eerie how the defenders of Bush's policies in Iraq are sounding like the defenders of Nixon's policies in Vietnam in the early 1970s. Back in 1972, Nixon and his defenders were saying that we were winning the war, that we must stay the course. And guess what. They were saying we must not cut and run, that we must prop up the "democratic government'' in Saigon, which was, of course, elected, as you know, by 80 percent of the people, and on and on and on.

I can remember a time when I sat in a room with a group of Congressmen in Saigon, listening to then-President Thieu tell us that we must stay in Vietnam and fight the communists there or we would be fighting them in the Philippines and in Japan and on our doorstep.

What do we hear now? We have to fight them over in Iraq or we will be fighting them here. Eerie, as I said. Eerie. Quite frankly, I say today President Bush is saying almost the exact same things that Richard Nixon said, and he has no more credibility than Richard Nixon did.

Likewise, back in 1972, President Nixon and his supporters were arguing that withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. But as LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, states in a current issue of Foreign Policy magazine--I want to quote him, "A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world."

I am going to repeat that. LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, said, "A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world."

General Odom went on to say, "Invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam [and left Iran as the strongest power in the Persian Gulf]. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans." That is not me. That is LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan. Beyond dividing our country, our endless, open-ended presence in Iraq has distracted our Government from urgent priorities, as I have said, in health care, education, law enforcement, and even a smarter approach to the very real terrorist threats of today and tomorrow. The men and women of our Armed Forces have sacrificed greatly. I don't know why it is that because they have sacrificed so greatly--and the fact is, the Commander in Chief told them what to do, and they did it. So to honor them, to honor what they have done in Iraq, we stay longer? We sacrifice more of our young people? We have more who are maimed for life? To honor them, we drain the Treasury of more of our dollars from taxpayers? Is that what it means to support our troops? I don't think so. I do not believe so. I believe to support our troops is to do exactly what LTG William Odom said. "A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq." It is time to allow the political process to go forward in Iraq. It is time to give Iraqi politicians greater incentive to bridge their differences and take responsibility for their country's future. It is time to bring home as many troops as possible, consistent with force protection requirements. It is time to redeploy as many as necessary to successfully pursue and crush bin Laden and al-Qaeda and to protect our vital interests around the world. President Bush tells us to be patient. He says Iraq will become a flourishing democracy that will spread the flame of freedom across the entire Middle East. But, with due respect to President Bush and to Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they have been consistently wrong--disastrously wrong--in all their predictions with regard to Iraq.

Before the invasion, Vice President Cheney said that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Secretary Rumsfeld said he knew exactly where Saddam was storing his weapons of mass destruction. And, as I noted 3 long years ago, President Bush said that major combat operations were over, mission accomplished. Many of President Bush's people assured us that the war would be self-financed thanks to Iraq's oil--Paul Wolfowitz. Vice President Cheney said, more than a year ago, that the insurgency was "in its last throes.'' Just yesterday, at the National Press Club, Vice President Cheney defended and repeated his claim that the insurgency is in its last throes.

I guess if you repeat something often enough--will people believe it? Listen to what Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time." Mr. Cheney, you may have fooled some people. The American people are not buying it any longer. I could go on and on with this litany of false assertions--prediction after prediction that turned out to be 100 percent wrong. There are those who say: But if we leave, there may be civil war in Iraq. As I have stated, I think the longer we stay, there will be more sectarian strife, more insurgency. But to be honest, I can't tell for sure what the likely outcome will be. How can anyone tell what the likely outcome will be, when we can't trust what the administration is telling us, when we can't trust, any longer, the intelligence as it is being given to us by the administration? We can't tell for sure.

So at this point, President Bush has not only spent his political capital, I think he has squandered the last shred of credibility when it comes to Iraq. Specifically, as I said, with regard to America's departure from Iraq, I think the President has it backwards. He says our Army will stand down only as the Iraqi Army stands up. The truth is that the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Government will stand up--make the hard political decisions--only when it is clear that the American military is committed to standing down by the end of this year.

So I repeat, I will vote in favor of both the Levin-Reed amendment and the Kerry-Feingold amendment. As I said, anything is better than what we have now, even though I think both could go further in setting a clear, decisive new direction. I stand by my conviction--and the wording in my resolution, the same as was introduced in the House by Representative Mike Thompson, with at least five if not six Republican cosponsors--that it is time to set a firm timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq and redoubling our fight against those who attacked us on September 11. Only this new course will produce the results we all want, both on the ground in Iraq and in the campaign against al-Qaeda and rebuilding, reconstituting our forces and rebuilding and reuniting the people of our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.