Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
The Need for a New National Security Strategy
December 13, 2005
Mr. President, over the past few months I have addressed the Senate
on a number of occasions about the Administration’s flawed Iraq
policies. I have discussed a number of problems with those policies,
but the most important problem is that they are undermining our ability
to counter the wide range of transnational threats that face our country.
In too many cases, these threats have been overlooked or insufficiently
addressed because of this Administration’s misguided emphasis
on, and policies in, Iraq.
Today I will explain why we need to refocus our national security strategy
on the global campaign against terrorist networks and I will identify
five areas on which we need to focus. A clear, targeted strategy to
strengthen our national security is not an option but a necessity in
the face of the growing threats posed by jihadist terrorist networks.
The President is spending a lot of time talking about success in Iraq.
Unfortunately, he fails to recognize that success in Iraq will not be
achieved by a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence. He fails
to understand the limited role the U.S. military can play in Iraq’s
long-term political and economic reconstruction efforts. And he fundamentally
fails to understand that success in Iraq is secondary to success in
our larger campaign against global terrorists. Iraq, simply put, is
not the be-all and end-all of our national security.
Our brave servicemen and women won a resounding victory in the initial
military operation in Iraq. They have performed magnificently under
very difficult circumstances. Now, their task is largely over. The current
massive U.S. military presence, without a clear strategy and flexible
timetable to finish the military mission in Iraq, is fueling the insurgency
and will ultimately prevent the very economic and political progress
Iraqis are demanding. This isn’t a strategy for success in Iraq,
or for success in the fight against global terrorism.
That’s why we need a flexible timeline for meeting clear benchmarks
and withdrawing U.S. troops.
I’m not talking about an artificial timetable: I’m calling
for a public, flexible timetable with clear benchmarks. I have suggested
December 2006 as a target date for completion of that mission, but I
have made clear that any date will have to be flexible to respond to
unforeseen circumstances.
Mr. President, the Administration has a unique opportunity this week
to set our Iraq policy on track. Iraqis will return to the polls on
December 15th to choose their leaders. Spelling out a plan for the timely
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will signal U.S. support for an
autonomous, independent, and self-sustaining Iraqi government. There
is no better way to empower the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi people
than by showing that the U.S. military mission in Iraq is not indefinite.
If we don’t heed the advice of a growing chorus of experts to
set a timetable for withdrawal, it will be impossible to re-center our
priorities and re-engage in the global campaign against terrorist networks.
And that’s what we need to do in order to defeat those networks.
We haven’t kept our eye on the ball, Mr. President. We have focused
on Iraq to the exclusion of these critical priorities, and we have done
so at our peril. It is far past time for us to engage in a serious dialogue
about the threats we face, and come up with a tough, comprehensive national
security strategy to defeat them.
What are these threats and where do they come from? Mr. President,
as we all know, the jihadist network is global in its reach, and it
is showing no signs of slowing its recruitment and organization in every
region of the world. Since we waged war against the Taliban in the fall
of 2001 – a war I supported, by the way -- we have seen the network
of extremist jihadist movements proliferate throughout the world. We’ve
seen it surface in Madrid, London, Amman, Bali, and in places like the
Philippines, Algeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Nigeria. And while it has
spread throughout the world, it holds certain similar characteristics
wherever it appears.
It’s good to turn to the definition that the 9/11 Commission
report itself gave of what this threat is: “the enemy is not Islam,
the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam.” The report
reads, “[t]he enemy goes beyond Al-Qaeda to include the radical
ideological movement inspired in part by Al-Qaeda that has spawned other
terrorists groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means
to two ends: dismantling the Al-Qaeda network and in the long term prevailing
over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism.”
In order to reduce the danger of Al-Qaeda and radical jihadism all
over the world, we must invest our time, our attention, and our best
minds on this global threat. And we can’t defeat it with just
one aspect of American power. We need to develop and execute a national
security strategy that utilizes our entire arsenal of political, economic,
diplomatic and military power in order to counter the primary threats
against us. I want to lay out five major areas of concern today. They
are (1) addressing the conditions in which terrorists thrive; (2) enhancing
our military’s ability to wage the campaign against global terrorists;
(3) improving our public and private diplomacy; (4) strengthening our
non-proliferation efforts; and (5), finally finishing the job in Afghanistan.
First, we must combat the conditions that make extremist ideologies
attractive and that allow terrorist networks to take root and grow.
Failed and weak states, like Somalia, allow terrorism, narcotics trade,
weapons proliferation, and other forms of organized crime to take root
and grow. By not addressing these conditions, we allow warlords and
terrorists to thrive and we leave people suffering from poverty and
oppression susceptible to their rhetoric, promises, and pressure.
Mr. President, let’s not forget that three of the poorest and
most isolated countries in the world -- Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan
– served as the starting blocks for the terrorist network that
delivered the most lethal attack ever on the U.S. If it wasn’t
clear before September 11, 2001, it is now – we ignore these places
at our national peril.
Over four years after 9/11, places like Somalia continue to be large,
black holes on our radar, and continue to create the conditions that
allow terrorist networks to recruit, train, and export their lethality
at will. While Somalia has remained a failed state for over a decade
now, recent examples of the lawlessness that exists within that country
made headlines when freely operating pirates attacked a civilian cruise
ship 25 miles off of the Somali coast. We can expect more headlines
like that if we continue to think that supposedly small, marginal states
aren’t worth our attention.
That’s why we should be taking seriously the inability of Uganda,
the new government of southern Sudan, or the UN to defeat the Lords
Resistance Army, which continues to commit atrocities around the Great
Lakes region of central Africa. And we don’t always have to look
far for failed states. Right here in our backyard, Haiti endures rampant
political violence and a festering humanitarian crisis, and has served
as a base for narco-terrorists and criminal power structures throughout
the region for over a decade. Unfortunately, this Administration has
failed to develop a comprehensive policy to help Haiti lift itself from
chaos and to create livable conditions for the citizens of Haiti. That’s
a mistake because leaving a country to suffer under chaos only creates
a platform for further threats to the region and to our country.
If we fail to address weak and failed states, the lawlessness displayed
by warlords, pirates, bandits, thugs, and thieves there will eventually
be exploited by our enemies. After all, terrorists find active and passive
support among the alienated and the disaffected. Addressing failed and
failing states is not easy, but turning a blind eye to them is naïve
and dangerous.
My second area of concern today is the need to prepare and equip our
military for a global campaign against terrorist networks. The war in
Iraq has had a devastating affect on our military’s readiness
and capabilities. I have voted for an increase in the military’s
end strength, but this is a long-term solution and doesn’t address
the immediate problems we face as we continue to over-burden the brave
men and women of our armed forces. It also doesn’t address our
failure to prioritize military spending. Right now, courageous servicemembers
are too often required to do their jobs without the right equipment.
While we continue to spend billions of dollars on Cold War-era weapons
systems, we are not fully funding the needs of the military personnel
fighting our current wars. It is a national shame that the Department
of Defense budget, which so dwarfs our spending in any other sector,
still has failed to pay for the timely provision of adequate armor for
our men and women in the battlefield.
Mr. President, waging a successful global campaign against terrorism
also will require us to counter new and growing terrorist tactics. Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs) continue to increase in lethality and complexity
in Iraq and elsewhere. I was pleased that Secretary Rumsfeld recently
appointed a retired general to lead a joint task force on countering
the threat of IEDs. As the death of 11 marines in Iraq on December 5th
showed, the U.S. military has yet to develop a strategy or technology
to sufficiently defend our servicemen and women from these troubling
weapons. More troubling is the fact that we are now seeing the use of
increasingly sophisticated IEDs outside of Iraq. This know-how and technology
is being proliferated throughout the global network of terrorists who
seek to harm the United States.
The IED task force needs to identify a strategy, tactics, technology,
and training to defend from these weapons, but it also needs to figure
out ways of countering the proliferation of IED technology, know-how,
and tactical training that are currently being exported from Iraq. Tragically,
Iraq has turned in to a testing-ground for these new weapons, and the
Administration needs to explain not just how it is countering the lethality
of IEDs in Iraq, but also how it is mitigating or preempting the use
of these weapons by terrorist networks globally.
My third area of concern, Mr. President, is our woefully inadequate
diplomatic efforts, public and private. As the recent 9/11 Commission
report card showed, we need to do much better in communicating our principles
and goals to the international community. In part we’re failing
because this Administration has not consistently adhered to the core
American values that have made us a model around the world, that helped
defeat communism, and that have inspired democracies globally. The Administration’s
approach to detainees, torture, and secret prisons, to name a few issues,
has jeopardized this country’s unique moral authority as a country
that upholds the rights, liberties, and freedoms of every individual.
I believe that we can combat terrorism while remaining true to those
values.
Mr. President, we need a new, sustained and comprehensive public and
private diplomacy, and a concerted effort to tell the rest of the world
who we really are and what we really believe in. This diplomatic effort
is essential if we are going to prevail in what is in part a battle
of ideas – and one that we can’t afford to lose. I’m
not talking about giving lectures or showing videos, but about engaging
in genuine dialogue with other peoples and countries. Listening, and
responding to, their concerns is one of the most effective ways to improve
our image, and thus our relationship, with the international community.
Diplomacy also involves looking for opportunities to demonstrate our
core values. One such opportunity was lost in the response to the recent
tragic earthquake in Pakistan, where hundreds of local religious organizations
– many of them linked to extremist or anti-American ideologies
– beat out U.S. relief efforts with quick, appropriate, and thoughtful
responses. A CEO of a U.S.-based relief agency, having just returned
from Pakistan, relayed to me his frustration that “the United
States lost a significant opportunity to win the hearts and minds of
a core population in Pakistan vulnerable to extremist ideologies because
we responded with standard, boxed solutions.”
We also need to engage our international partners not only in the campaign
against terrorist networks, but also in the challenge to eradicate malaria,
address HIV/AIDS, help rebuild countries like the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, bring peace to the Darfur region in Sudan, and help counter
the impact that illicit power structures and the absence of rule of
law has on societies around the world, to give just a few examples.
We need to work hand-in-hand with those partners in developing strategies
to isolate rogue states, and to advance democracy and respect for human
rights.
The fourth area we need to focus on, Mr. President, is the proliferation
of weapons large and small. We need to do much more to stop nuclear
proliferation and ensure that terrorist organizations do not obtain
access to nuclear weapons. We must deal with the threats of loose nukes
as an urgent priority both at home and abroad. This administration,
unfortunately, has failed to do so. More nuclear weapons were secured
in Russia in the two years before 9/11 then in the two years after.
That’s an alarming fact, Mr. President. And we should not have
missed the opportunity at the last Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
conference to start moving forward on a new global regime, one that
does a better job of protection and punishing cheating so that states
cannot take their nuclear programs right up to the line of compliance
and then withdraw from the treaty when they are ready to become new
nuclear weapon states. We should also reverse the foolish decision to
ease export restrictions on bomb grade uranium that was part of the
massive and misguided energy bill signed by the President this summer.
We also need to focus on smaller weapons that continue to fall into
the hands of terrorist networks at a cost of tens of thousands of lives
each year. I applaud the recent announcement by my distinguished colleagues
Senators Lugar and Obama of their new initiative to make more funding
and new authorities available for non-proliferation programs, and to
counter the growing threat that light weapons, such as the Man Portable
Air Defense System (MANPADs), pose to the United States. Unfortunately,
we’re behind the ball on this issue, and we need to drastically
improve our ability to hunt down, shut down, and capture the networks
of arms dealers that are getting rich by selling weapons to our enemies.
Fifth, and finally, Mr. President, we must re-focus our energies on
Afghanistan. The President spends a lot of time discussing Iraq but
not much time on Afghanistan, which was – and maybe still is --
home to Osama bin Laden. Unlike our military presence in Iraq, our presence
in Afghanistan is contributing to increased stability in the country
and region, and is delivering progress in the war on Al Qaeda. Success
in Afghanistan is essential for making progress in the campaign against
terrorist networks, and it is where we must show the commitment, resolution,
and capabilities of America. It is one of the first battlefields in
this war, and we now have the opportunity to turn what was once a despotic
and broken country in to a thriving democracy. It needs a lot of work,
though, and disproportionate attention to Iraq has drained many of our
positive and appreciated efforts there.
I see three major areas in need of further attention in Afghanistan,
Mr. President.
First, as part of assuring long-term success in Afghanistan, we need
to ensure that international assistance, much of it from the U.S., continues
to be targeted, coordinated, and appropriate. We are running the risk
of creating a “Donor’s Republic of Afghanistan” by
creating an unsustainable Afghan government that the Afghans themselves
can’t afford or manage. At this time, annual recurring costs to
maintain the U.S.-developed Afghan National Army outweigh the central
government’s revenue streams by a multiple of two or three. And
this isn’t taking into consideration the police force and other
essential public services that are in drastic disrepair or in need of
further development.
Second, we need to continue to encourage burden-sharing throughout
the international community, and look to encouraging a greater role
for NATO, the United Nations, and most importantly, the Afghan government,
as it struggles to fight resurgent terrorist and obstructionist threats.
I was glad to receive news last week that NATO will increase its presence
in southern Afghanistan, but we need to assure that long-term development
and security aid is tied to measurable benchmarks for success.
Third, we need to continue to pressure countries like Pakistan, Iran,
China, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and others to be constructive
partners in the development of Afghanistan’s new and fragile government
and economy. Afghanistan is suffering from porous borders which make
it an ideal environment for a thriving illegal drug trade, illegal imports
and exports, and terrorists and insurgents that want to prevent the
new Afghan government from developing.
Mr. President, we have to succeed in Afghanistan. If we allow the new
Afghan government to become weak, feckless, and corrupt, we will risk
losing everything we have invested. We will lose a partner in the campaign
against terrorist networks, and we will lose the opportunity to point
to Afghanistan as an accomplishment.
Mr. President, I have identified five crucial areas in which we are
not doing enough to protect our national security. We’re not doing
enough for a number of reasons, but foremost among them is the Administration’s
single-minded and self-defeating emphasis on Iraq. The President’s
debilitating and misguided Iraq policy is preventing us from focusing
our attention, our resources, and our efforts on the global campaign
against terrorist networks. That’s why we need a plan to wind
down our military presence in Iraq and bring our focus back to the threat
of radical jihadist-based terrorism.
While this Administration talks and thinks about Iraq, our enemies
are growing stronger around the globe. Those enemies are disparate,
diffuse, and relentless. They operate in ungoverned spaces, on the Internet,
in cities, mountains and jungles. Left unchecked, they will continue
to plot against the U.S. Our national security policy is adrift, but
we have the power to change it, to correct our course. We must tackle
these challenges, and build a security strategy that protects our nation
from the most dangerous threat it faces.
Read Previous Statements of Senator Feingold's Regarding Iraq:
October
25, 2005- "Why a Timeframe for the U.S. Military Mission in
Iraq Will Improve Our National Security"
September
29, 2005 - "How the President's Policy is Weakening America"
August
23, 2005 - Senator Feingold speaks at the Town Hall Los Angeles
Association
July
27, 2005 - "The Lack of a Coherent Policy in Iraq"
|
