Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Redeployment of U.S. Troops from Iraq by
December 31, 2006
As prepared for delivery from the Senate floor
Listen
to my statement here
May 2, 2006
Mr. President, our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening
our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from
Iraq and refocusing our attention on the global terrorist threats that
face us. I have filed an amendment that requires the redeployment of
U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31st, 2006.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate will not be given the opportunity
to vote on this amendment if we invoke cloture on the emergency supplemental
bill that we will be considering shortly.
This body has failed time and again to debate the direction of our
country’s policy in Iraq. Three years ago the President landed
on an aircraft carrier and declared “Mission Accomplished”
in Iraq. Today, with thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars
spent, we are still no closer to a policy that lifts the burden from
our troops and taxpayers, and that actually makes our country safer
from the terrorist networks that seek to hurt us.
By failing to discuss alternatives to the Administration’s failed
Iraq policy, we have let down this institution and our constituents.
We simply cannot continue to avoid asking the tough questions about
Iraq. We should not be appropriating billions of dollars for Iraq without
debating – and demanding -- a strategy to complete our military
mission there. Not when the lives of our soldiers and the safety of
our country are at risk, Mr. President.
Mr. President, our military has performed heroically in Iraq, but the
continued and indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. forces there
significantly weakens our ability to fight the global terrorist networks
that threaten us today.
That is why I filed an amendment requiring the Pentagon to draw up
a flexible timeline for redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the
end of this year. The President has repeatedly failed to spell out for
the American people when we can expect our troops to redeploy from Iraq.
He has refused to provide a vision for ending our military mission in
Iraq, and as a result a growing majority of Americans have lost confidence
in our purpose, our direction, and our presence in Iraq.
Last August, I proposed a target date for withdrawal when I suggested
U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of 2006. This amendment in part reflects
the fact that the Administration has made no progress – no progress
whatsoever – in developing a clear vision for ending our military
mission, redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, and refocusing on the real
national security threats that face our country.
My amendment spells out what an increasing number of military, intelligence,
and diplomatic officials have been saying for some time – that
a massive and seemingly indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq is destabilizing
and potentially damaging to Iraqi efforts to rebuild their government
and their country. Our presence is generating instability in Iraq, and
unless we make it clear that our intent is to leave, and to leave now,
our presence is more harmful than it is helpful.
More important, though, is the fact that our current Iraq policy is
making the United States weaker, not stronger. We need to redeploy U.S.
forces from Iraq because, as a result of our current costly and burdensome
presence in Iraq, we are unable to direct our resources worldwide to
defeat the wide and growing network of terrorist organizations that
seek to harm Americans. This Administration has compounded its misguided
decision to wage war in Iraq by refusing to recognize the consequences
of its actions – the tremendous cost to our brave troops and their
loved ones, the drain on our financial resources, and the burden on
our nation’s national security resources and infrastructure, which
are unable to focus on new and emerging threats to our country.
I don’t have to point very far, Mr. President, to show how imbalanced
and burdensome our policies in Iraq are. While we have spent, according
to the Congressional Research Service, upwards of $6 billion dollars
per week during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and $1.3 billion per week during
Operation Enduring Freedom, we are spending a little more than $2 million
annually – not weekly -- in Somalia, a known haven for terrorists
and criminals and a true threat to our national security. This supplemental
appropriation, if passed, will increase the cost of this war to $320
billion and rising. Mr. President, this is simply unsustainable, and
because the President has failed to provide us with any semblance of
a vision for when our troops will be redeployed, we can expect more
of the same for years to come. That is, unless the Congress finally
requires the Administration to develop an Iraq strategy that includes
a flexible timeline for redeploying our troops by the end of 2006.
Mr. President, my amendment recognizes the need to maintain a minimal
level of U.S. forces in Iraq beyond 2006. Those forces will be needed
for engaging directly in targeted counter-terrorism activities, training
Iraqi security forces, and protecting essential U.S. infrastructure
and personnel.
Mr. President, it is time for Members of Congress to stand up to an
Administration that continues to lead us astray in what has become an
extremely costly and mistaken war. We need to hold this Administration
accountable for its neglect of urgent national security priorities in
favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq. And we need to tell
the Administration that they it can’t continue to send our men
and women in uniform into harm’s way without a clear and convincing
strategy for success.
Some have suggested that we should tie our military presence in Iraq
to whether or not Iraqis are able to form a unity government. While
I share their frustration with the status quo, decisions about our troop
presence should be based on what is best for our country’s national
security. Making decisions about our troop levels contingent on a political
solution in Iraq doesn’t make sense – our troops should
not be held hostage to the failure to bring about a political solution
in Iraq.
Here’s the bottom line: We need to refocus on fighting and defeating
the terrorist network that attacked this country on September 11, 2001,
and that means placing our Iraq policy in the context of a global effort,
rather than letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital
security resources for an unlimited amount of time. The President’s
Iraq-centric policies are preventing us from effectively engaging serious
threats around the world, including Iran, global terrorist networks,
and other emerging threats. We must change course in Iraq, and we must
change course now, Mr. President. It is in this spirit that I filed
this amendment to this supplemental spending bill. And, if I am not
allowed a vote on my amendment to the supplemental, I can assure my
colleagues that I will be looking for the next opportunity to bring
this amendment to the floor for debate and a vote.
My colleagues are entitled to disagree with my approach. I welcome
their suggestions and their advice. But what I really want is for the
Senate to live up to its responsibility and engage in a serious debate
about the topic that’s on the mind of every American – how
to put our Iraq policy right and our national security policy right.
| 