Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Lack
of a Coherent Policy in Iraq
From the Senate Floor
July 27, 2005
Mr. President, we should be using our time right now to continue our
work on the Department of Defense authorization bill, working through
important amendments relating to the needs of our military and our
nation's security and giving these issues the time and careful attention
that they so clearly deserve. At a time when our brave men and women
in uniform are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere -- risking
and, too often, losing their lives in service to this country -- we
ought to be working intensively on the Defense bill. At a time when
terrorist networks continue to strike at our allies, killing innocent
civilians in an attempt to intimidate everyone who rejects their violent,
extremist agenda, we ought to be focusing sustained attention on ensuring
that our military has the tools that it needs, and our country has
the policy that it needs, to create a more secure world for our children.
And as a part of that effort, we must devote more time and more attention
to a realistic assessment of where we stand today in Iraq, and where
we should be going.
As my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution
calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the
mission that the US military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq
and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission.
This doesn't seem like much to ask for -- after all, if we don't have
a clear plan and timeframe, how can we hold ourselves accountable
for giving the military the tools they need to succeed in achieving
those goals? The resolution also calls on the President to submit
a plan for the subsequent return home of US troops that is also linked
to a timeframe, so that we provide some clarity about our intentions
and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not
be in Iraq indefinitely.
My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain.
And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in
Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best
and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation
with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible
-- there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions
can be accomplished. But it's hard to conceive of an effective strategic
plan that isn't linked to some timeframes. That is what the Administration
needs to share.
I want to respond directly to some of the criticisms
of this approach.
Some have suggested that to question the path that we
are on is to undermine our united commitment to support the courageous
men and women who have been deployed in harm's way.
And some believe that any discussion of timeframes,
flexible or otherwise, is basically code for a "withdraw now"
agenda.
Neither of these charges is credible. Just this morning,
General Casey spoke publicly of the potential to reduce our troop
levels fairly substantially by the spring and summer of 2006. I think
his comments, and Iraqi Prime Minister Jafari's frank acknowledgement
that "the great desire of the Iraqi people is to see the coalition
forces be on their way out," are constructive. And I hardly think
that General Casey can be accused of failing to support his fellow
servicemen and women.
My support for our troops has not wavered one inch,
Mr. President. And it will not. I did not support the Administration's
decision to go to war in Iraq, but I have consistently voted to provide
our servicemen and women with the resources they need in Iraq. And
I know that our troops have done, and continue to do, a remarkable
job. The brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces deserve
our admiration, our respect, and our unflagging support. But that's
not all that they deserve. They deserve sound policy from elected
officials. They don't have that right now. The Administration must
not leave them in the lurch any longer. Are US forces supposed to
be waging a counterinsurgency campaign, or taking sides in what may
be an emerging civil war? Or are they supposed to be focused primarily
on training Iraqi forces so that the Iraqis can be in the driver's
seat when it comes to taking the decisions, and the risks, associated
with achieving their own stability? I hope the Administration knows
the answers to these questions, but until they provide them, all of
us are in the dark.
Mr. President, it is also clear that we must not accept
a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and "cutting
and running." The status quo -- staying a rudderless course without
a clear destination -- would be a mistake. The course we are on is
not leading to strength. In fact, Mr. President, I am concerned that
it is making America weaker and our enemies stronger.
The ill-defined and open-ended military commitment that
characterizes our current policy in Iraq is actually strengthening
the very forces who wish to do us harm. I'm not talking about disgruntled
Baathists, although I am concerned that nationalist sentiments will
make it more and more difficult for many Iraqis to accept a massive
foreign troop presence on their soil -- something that they regard
as a humiliation. More alarmingly, I'm talking about the forces that
attacked this country on September 11th, 2001. These forces weren't
active in Iraq before the invasion, but they came once disorder in
Iraq took hold, and today, as CIA Director Porter Goss has made plain
in testimony before Congress, "Islamic extremists are exploiting
the Iraqi conflict to recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists." Just
recently, President Bush told the country that "with each engagement,
Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more
experienced."
Unfortunately, the same is true of the foreign fighters.
Iraq has become a prime on-the-job training ground for jihadists from
around the world -- terrorists who are getting experience in overcoming
U.S. countermeasures, experience in bombing, and experience in urban
warfare -- they may well be getting a better education in terrorism
than jihadists received at al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan. And they
don't just have skills -- they now have contacts. They are building
new, transnational networks, making the most of Al Qaeda's new model
of supporting loosely affiliated franchise-type organizations. Press
reports suggest that the CIA is calling this emerging threat the "class
of '05 problem." Mr. President, all of us, on both sides of the
aisle, should be thinking about how to ensure that there is no similar
class of '06.
It would be nice to believe that these terrorists will
be swept into Iraq only to be annihilated by U.S. forces. But that
kind of "roach motel" approach to fighting is hardly a strategic
vision. At its best, it is wishful thinking -- and more wishful thinking
is just what our Iraq policy and our strategy for fighting terrorism
do not need. I agree wholeheartedly with the President that we must
not waver in our commitment to defeating the terrorist networks that
wish to do us harm. And I know, as he must know, that these networks
exist around the world. Fighting terrorists in Baghdad does not mean
that we won't have to fight them elsewhere, and, sadly, we need only
look at the headlines over the past few weeks to find the terrible
evidence of this hard fact.
Mr. President, I am gravely concerned that not only
are our enemies gaining strength under the Administration's current
policies -- we are getting weaker. The U.S. Army is being hollowed
out by the Administration's policies. The Army is straining to maintain
the cycle of rotations and training that we know it needs to sustain
its capacities, and recruitment efforts have been in serious trouble
for some time now. Meanwhile, costs for the Future Combat System --
a system that depends on technology that is not yet even developed
-- spiral out of control. We cannot stand by and allow the U.S. Army
to be broken. We cannot stay this course.
And Mr. President, the current course of action simply
is not inspiring confidence among the American people. I know that
my constituents are terribly troubled by the Administration's handling
of the war in Iraq. After the shifting justifications for this war,
the rosy scenarios that bore no resemblance to reality, and the unreliable
declarations of "mission accomplished," they sense that
our policy is adrift. A democracy cannot succeed in achieving its
goals without the support of the people. They deserve clarity and
candor and so do our troops on the ground.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to talk about the most
common criticism leveled at anyone who invokes the phrase "timetable"
in talking about our military deployment in Iraq. The charge goes
something like this: if the insurgents know when we plan to go, they
will simply hunker down and lie in wait for the time when we are no
longer present in large numbers, and then they will attack.
Well, Mr. President, if that were the insurgents' plan,
why wouldn't they cease all attacks now, lay low, let everyone believe
that stability has been achieved, and spring up again once the security
presence in Iraq is dramatically reduced? If we really believe the
argument that any kind of timetable is a "lifeline" to the
insurgents, then why wouldn't they try to induce us to throw them
that lifeline?
We cannot know all the reasons behind the choices made
by the diverse elements waging Iraq's insurgency. But one thing is
clear: ultimately, we will withdraw from Iraq, and it will not be
secret when we do. Does the Administration believe that the insurgents
will be entirely defeated at that point? Is it really our policy to
stay in Iraq until every last insurgent and every last terrorist is
defeated? Recently Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made news when he
said that the insurgency could well last a decade or more, and that
ultimately, "foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency,"
rather it is going to be defeated by the Iraqis themselves. I think
this analysis makes good sense -- especially given the fact that our
very presence in Iraq is helping to recruit more foreign jihadists
every day. But the Secretary's candor made waves, because for long,
costly months we lacked clarity on this critical point regarding just
what the remaining U.S. military mission is in Iraq. Is it to defeat
the insurgency, or is it to give the Iraqis the tools to do that themselves?
If the remaining military mission is to train Iraqis
to provide for their own security, we ought to be able to articulate
a clear plan for getting that job done. If we know how many troops
we need to train, and we know how long it takes to train effectively,
then we ought to have some sense of how long it will take to accomplish
our mission.
When I was in Baghdad in February, a senior coalition
officer told me that he believes the U.S. could "take the wind
out of the sails of the insurgents" by providing a clear, public
plan and timeframe for the remaining U.S. mission. He thought this
could rob them of their recruiting momentum. I also think it could
rob them of some unity. All reports indicate that the forces fighting
U.S. troops and attacking Iraqi police, soldiers, and civilians are
a disparate bunch with different agendas, from embittered former regime
elements to foreign fighters. The one thing that unites them is opposition
to America's presence in Iraq. Remove that factor, and we may see
a more divided, less effective, more easily defeated insurgency.
Mr. President, intense American diplomatic and political
engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the
troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that
we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation
with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world
to combat terrorist networks. And we have to be working diligently
to combat a burgeoning culture of corruption in Iraq, or the rule
of law doesn't stand a chance. We need to make reconstruction work
and deliver real democracy dividends for the Iraqi people. The situation
in Iraq is complex and it requires a long-term political commitment
from the U.S. What my resolution addresses is just one piece of the
puzzle for achieving our interests in Iraq and helping the people
of Iraq and the region move toward a more stable future.
Mr. President, I certainly don't have all the answers
to the complex problem we confront in Iraq. But I know that it's time
to restore confidence in the American people that this President and
this Administration know where we are going and how we plan to get
there. It's time to put Iraq in the context of a broader vision for
our security. It's time to regain a position of strength. That starts
with sustained attention, focus, and debate -- and we should be doing
that right here in this Congress, right now.
