Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Kerry-Feingold Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization
Bill Setting a Deadline of July 1, 2007 for the Redeployment of U.S.
Troops from Iraq
From the Senate Floor
June 21, 2006
Listen
to Senator Feingold's Statement
Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague from
Massachusetts. I am going to abbreviate my remarks so that he and
I can hopefully split this time and yield it back. I think it's regrettable
that we're not able to present this amendment in the manner that we
normally would expect, which is that the two lead sponsors would each
offer their thoughts without that type of limitation. Nonetheless,
this amendment is something that I think represents not only the views
of the senator from Massachusetts and myself, but the views of the
majority of the American people which they have come to in a very
painful way after this war has proceeded in the way it has.
In fact, I find it jarring that we spend so much time
on the floor of the Senate and throughout the Congress talking almost
incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation
involved Iraq, as if the attack had come from Iraq. Well, of course,
it didn't. We were attacked by al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan
on 9/11. And yet, here we are discussing day after day, week after
week, every tiny aspect of the situation in Iraq. Of course it's a
terribly important situation. But I would submit, I think the senator
from Massachusetts agrees with me, that the overriding issue here
is what is in the best interest of the national security of the United
States of America. What is in the best interest of protecting the
American people when they are at home and when they are abroad? All
of us here in this chamber, every single one of us supported the appropriate
action to invade Afghanistan. It was a necessary war, a war that had
to be fought in order to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda. None of
us stood back and said, as the senator from Texas wants to say, somehow
that some of us who don't believe in war, will never support a war,
the rest who support wars. That's absurd. We understand when it is
absolutely essential, and it was essential in the case of Afghanistan.
I voted against the Iraq war because it appeared obvious
to me that that was not the wise next strategic move in the fight
against al Qaeda, those who attacked us. It was pretty clear to me.
But it was even clearer apparently to this administration when on
their own State Department web site, where President Bush had his
name, they listed the 45 countries where al Qaeda was operating, where
they believed al Qaeda was operating. This came out in November of
2001. It included, obviously, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Ireland, the United States. Guess what country wasn't even on their
list? Iraq. And this has been confirmed publicly by the recognition
now, despite the gross misrepresentations that al Zarqawi, Mr. Zarqawi
was not even in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein when
we invaded Iraq. It's pretty obvious on the face of it that this was
not the place to go if we want to deal with al Qaeda. They weren't
there then. But because of the errors we’ve made here we’ve
created a beach head to allow them to do far more than they could
have done in the past. I understand former Secretary of State James
Baker, Secretary of State under the first George Bush, said that he
used to go around the country, and people would ask him every day,
"Why didn't you go on into Iraq at the time of the first Gulf
War?" And he says with a smile, "I don't get asked that
question anymore." Because it didn't make sense. It didn't make
sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying
in Iraq is necessary because what we're going to do is have all the
terrorists are going to come into Iraq and we're going to get them
all, and they won't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some have
characterized this as the roach motel theory, the idea that all these
terrorists from all over the world are focused on Iraq and by staying,
we're going to get them. This is what I would like to call an Iraq-centric
policy, a policy that somehow believes that Iraq is the be-all and
end-all of our foreign policy when in fact it is nothing of the kind.
The fact is the fight against al Qaeda and those who attacked us on
9/11 is a much broader fight. I've seen estimates from anywhere to
60 to 80 countries where al Qaeda is operating. Yet our focus and
our resources and our troops and our intelligence are very heavily
focused only on this Iraq situation. Now I think this is just plain
tragic five years after 9/11.
You might say, well, we're fighting the terrorists in
other countries too. We're doing whatever we can. But we are not.
We have taken our eye off the ball. We are not dealing with the al
Qaeda threat in other countries because we are so focused on Iraq.
One good example is Somalia. Remember Somalia? This is a place where
we know that there were al Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups.
It's one of those failed states where it's almost an invitation to
terrorist organizations to come in and organize and be away from any
kind of control. Well, because we haven't been paying attention to
Somalia, because we don't have a policy in Somalia, guess what just
happened? A radical Islamist group has taken over Mogadishu and now
threatens to take over the rest of the country. I can’t say
for sure what they will do, but there are indications that they may
be very much like a Taliban government or organization that fostered
al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So we've taken our eye off the ball. In fact,
I asked the ambassador last week in a public hearing, how many people
do we have devoted to the Somalia problem full time? You know what
his answer was? One person. One person in a country that is clearly
a threat in terms of al Qaeda.
It's not just there. What about Indonesia? Indonesia
is the largest Islamic country in the entire world. It is the fourth-largest
country in the world. Senators here are debating who had been to Iraq
the most. One said he had been there 12 times, another said 11 times.
Guess how many have been to Indonesia once in the last two and a half
years? Just two of us: Senator Bond and myself. A country that is
being terrorized by a group called JI, al-Jamaah al-Islamiyah, that
is clearly affiliated with al Qaeda. We’re not paying attention
to Indonesia. We're not putting our political and other resources
there. We are only focused on Iraq where al Qaeda wasn't even operating
at the time of the invasion.
If that isn't enough, what about Afghanistan? I think
we can all agree that Afghanistan is a place where we ought to win,
where we shouldn't deplete our resources, where we shouldn't, in the
words of my colleagues on the other side, cut and run. We are now
feeling the consequences of what some have called the Iraq tax in
Afghanistan. And that is the resurgence of Taliban fighters. The recent
death of more U.S. and Afghan soldiers there and the continued presence
of terrorist networks in the region show how shortsighted this administration
was by taking its eye off the ball.
Mr. President, we have not finished the job in Afghanistan,
and we are now at risk of backsliding into instability. This is where
the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was planned. This is
where it was done. And because of this overemphasis and obsession
with only staying in Iraq, we are allowing the Taliban and perhaps
al Qaeda to get back in. Let me just give you an example of what some
have said about this. A recent expert indicated with regard to the
Afghanistan situation:
"It's now five years since George W. Bush declared
victory in Afghanistan and said that the terrorists were smashed.
Since the Bonn meeting in late 2001, a smorgasbord of international
military and development forces has been increasing in size. How is
it then that Afghanistan is near collapse once again? To put it briefly,
what has gone wrong has been the invasion of Iraq."
What has gone wrong is the invasion of Iraq. Washington's
refusal to take state building in Afghanistan seriously and instead
waging a fruitless war in Iraq. And that view is shared by many others,
Mr. President. I assure you I could give you many, many other examples.
But the point is that despite the fact that we all know who attacked
us on 9/11, we are not focused on them. It is the most absurd situation
I have ever seen in my 25 years as a legislator. Everybody knows that
we went into Iraq on a mistaken basis. Everybody knows that al Qaeda’s
the one who attacked us. And yet somehow our colleagues on the other
side are trying to pretend they’re one and the same thing when
everybody knows it is nothing of the kind.
So we have to change course. We have to refocus our
energies on those that attacked us. I've heard a number of statements
on the floor today, and I have been out here on and off since noon
listening to the debate. I heard the senator from Kentucky make the
assertion that if we don't, they'll soon be back here, meaning in
the United States, if we don't stop them in Iraq. Well, the fact is
they are being effective in attacking us and our colleagues and our
allies in many other places. In Indonesia, in London, in Madrid, in
Turkey, in Morocco. It's not as if there haven't been any attacks.
It's not as if this al Qaeda organization isn't functioning. I mean,
under their argument, apparently we should invade all those other
countries on false pretenses as a way to somehow root out the terrorists.
But we know that that approach doesn't work.
My colleagues, if we continue to be stuck in Iraq, we
are facilitating al Qaeda’s future. We are facilitating their
recruitment. We are facilitating the growth of their operations in
places like the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia. We are facilitating
al Qaeda if we continue to make this mistake in Iraq over and over
again. That is what I care the most about. One of my colleagues, the
senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, said if we were to withdraw
the troops or redeploy the troops in the coming year that we would
be giving the enemy the playbook. Well, my point is, we need a new
playbook. The playbook has nothing to do with 9/11. The playbook has
nothing to do with al Qaeda. We need a new playbook that has something
to do with what really threatens the American people.
That's what the Kerry-Feingold amendment is all about.
It's not about just taking off. What it's about is refocusing, and
of course we've been faced all day with all the horrible things that
might happen if we bring the troops out of Iraq, and that's a fair
debate. What happens if the other side's wrong? What happens if a
reasonable redeployment over the next year would work? The Iraqi government
would be able to handle it. Think about the "what if" there.
We had a moment of silence out here I believe on October 31st for
the 2,000th American troop killed in the Iraq war. I believe last
week we had a moment of silence for number 2,500. What if they are
wrong? What if we can get out of there now in a reasonable way and
refocus in the fight against terrorism so we don't have to stand here
and have that moment for number 3,000 or number 3,500, for number
10,000? That is the direction we are heading. And the American people
know it. Do we really think it makes sense for our national security
to have some 135,000 American troops on the ground in harm's way without
any clear idea of how that is going to change the situation in Iraq?
Mr. President, it was a bad strategy to go into Iraq
in the first place and it's a bad strategy to just stay there because
we're there and we don't want to admit that it was a bad idea in the
first place. Some will say, well, what you're saying then is those
that have died have died in vain in Iraq. I disagree. I think any
time an American gives his or her life pursuant to a decision of our
democracy, it is impossible for that person to die in vain. That's
how our system works. And I voted against this war. I didn't think
it was a good idea but we voted on it. That's how it works. As long
as those troops fight in that spirit, in support of a democratic decision,
they do not die in vain. And we honor them for their sacrifice.
Mr. President, if the policy is wrong, if we made a
mistake, we owe it to their families, we owe it to those who are injured,
we owe it to those that are still there, those who will still go and
who will die in the future to correct that mistake, to change course.
We owe it to them to do what makes the most sense. What makes the
most sense? We really have in my view two choices. Not this absurd
notion that somehow somebody wants all the troops to leave tomorrow.
Choice number one is a completely open-ended commitment with no guarantee
that this will end any time in the near future. Or a commitment to
finish the mission by a reasonable date and redeploy the troops where
they can be better used to help us in the fight against those that
attacked us on 9/11.
Mr. President, I heard the senator from Virginia say,
junior senator from Virginia, he said, we don't need to embolden our
enemy. It is his view that the idea of having a reasonable timetable
to bring the troops out emboldens the enemy. Well, I’ll tell
you, Mr. President, what emboldens the enemy. Thinking that they've
got us in a trap and we don't know how to get out. That emboldens
them and exhilarates them. They wanted us in Iraq. They're glad we're
in Iraq and they're using it as a way to fuel the hatred that generated
9/11. That's the bottom line. To me, this is about national security.
To me, this is about those that attacked us on 9/11. This administration
and this congress made a mistake by thinking that Iraq was the logical
next step in this fight. It is time to reverse course. It is time
to redeploy. It is time to focus on the real security of the American
people.
