Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Feingold-Reid Amendment to Safely Redeploy U.S. Troops Out
of Iraq
From the Senate Floor
September 20, 2007
Madam President, last week, as the Administration was trying to convince
us to stay the latest course in Iraq, it made very little mention of
the fact that in every month this year, January through August, substantially
more U.S. troops have died in Iraq than in the corresponding month in
2006. It also had little to say about a British survey released last
week which found that nearly one in two Baghdad households have lost
at least one member to war-related violence, and that 22 percent of
surveyed households across the nation have endured at least one death.
Based on the number of households in Iraq, Madam President, this could
mean upwards of 1 million civilian deaths have occurred as a result
of the war in Iraq.
Despite these facts, this administration assures us that violence is
decreasing and that the security situation in Iraq is getting better.
They tell us success is within reach and that we are closer to attaining
our objectives, even though those objectives keep changing – most
recently from supporting a strong central government to a more “bottom-up”
and local approach. Just give us more time, they say, just like they
said in 2004, and 2005, and 2006. The slogan may be different –
we’ve had “Mission Accomplished,” and “Stay
the Course”, and “The New Way Forward” and now “Return
on Success” – but each time we are told we are on the right
road. Until, that is, we reach another dead end, and a new slogan is
invented to justify our open-ended presence in Iraq.
As the administration blunders from one mistake to another, brave American
troops are being injured and killed in Iraq, our military is being over-stretched,
countless billions of dollars are being spent, the American people are
growing more and more frustrated and outraged, and our national security,
quite frankly, is being undermined.
Our top national security priority should be going after al Qaeda and
its affiliates. They are waging a global campaign, from North Africa
to Southeast Asia, and we cannot afford to continue focusing so much
of our resources on one single country without a legitimate strategy
for dealing with the threats posed by al Qaeda’s global reach.
Instead of seeing the big picture – instead of placing Iraq in
the context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless
enemy – this administration persists in the tragic mistake it
made over four years ago when it took the country to war in Iraq. That
war has led to the deaths of more than 3,700 Americans and perhaps as
many as one million Iraqi civilians. It has deepened instability throughout
the Middle East, jeopardized our credibility, and alienated our friends
and allies.
This summer’s declassified National Intelligent Estimate confirms
that al Qaeda remains the most serious threat to the United States.
Indeed, key elements of that threat have been regenerated and even enhanced.
While we have been distracted by the war in Iraq, al Qaeda has protected,
rebuilt, and strengthened its safe haven in the border region between
Pakistan and Afghanistan and has increased its collaboration with regional
terrorist groups in other parts of the world. With its safe haven, al
Qaeda is working to expand its network and therefore its ability to
strike Western targets, including ones right here in the United States.
The administration has much to say about al Qaeda in Iraq. They won’t
tell you that al Qaeda in Iraq is an al Qaeda affiliate which was spawned
by this disastrous war, however, and they would rather not talk about
al Qaeda’s safe haven in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or even
recognize the serious global threat that continues to exist and that
has even been strengthened while our troops are dying in Iraq. That,
Madam President, tells you all you need to know about the administration’s
painfully narrow focus on Iraq.
The war in Iraq is not making us safer; it is making us more vulnerable.
It is stretching our military to the breaking point and inflaming tensions
and anti-American sentiment in an important and volatile part of the
world. It is playing into the hands of our enemies, as even the State
Department recognized when it said that the war in Iraq is “used
as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring
countries.”
It would be easy to put all the blame on the administration, but I’m
afraid Congress is complicit, too. Congress authorized the war and Congress
has so far allowed it to continue, despite strong efforts from the new
Democratic leadership. Now, once again, it is up to us here in Congress
to reverse this President’s intractable policy, to listen to the
American people, to save American lives, and to protect our nation's
security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We have the power and
the responsibility to act and we must act now.
I am not suggesting that we abandon the people of Iraq, or that we
ignore the political stalemate there and the rapidly unfolding humanitarian
crisis which has displaced more than 4 million Iraqis from their homes.
These critical issues require the attention and constructive engagement
of U.S. policymakers, key regional players, and the international community.
But Madam President, such turbulence can not, and will not, be resolved
by a massive military engagement. The administration’s surge is
another dead end. The surge was supposedly aimed at created the space
necessary for political compromise, but the Iraqi government is no more
reconciled than it was when the surge began, and American troops are
dying in greater numbers than last year, or the year before.
That is why I am again offering an amendment with Majority Leader Harry
Reid, and Senators Leahy, Boxer, Whitehouse, Harkin, Sanders, Schumer,
Dodd, Durbin and Menendez. Our amendment, which is similar to legislation
we introduced earlier this year, would require the President to begin
safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment,
and would require redeployment to be completed by June 30, 2008.
At that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the
war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security
for U.S. government personnel and infrastructure; training the Iraqi
Security Forces (ISF); providing training and equipment to U.S. servicemen
and women to ensure their safety and security; and, conducting “targeted
operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda
and other affiliated international terrorist organizations.”
By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally focus on what should be our
top national security priority – waging a global campaign against
al Qaeda and its affiliates. Our bill will allow targeted missions against
al Qaeda in Iraq but it won’t allow the administration to maintain
substantial numbers of U.S. troops in that country.
The bill will also allow training of Iraqis, but we have taken steps
to address serious concerns about the loyalties of the ISF. The Government
Accountability Office has found that the ISF have been infiltrated by
Shia militia, and General Jones’ recent report indicated that
the ISF are compromised by militias and sectarian alliances. In addition,
there have been several reports of ISF attacks upon U.S. troops. That
is why we do not allow training for Iraqis who have been involved in
sectarian violence or attacks upon Americans.
We also prevent the “training” exception from being used
as a loophole to keep tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq. We do
this by stipulating that U.S. troops providing training can not be embedded
or take part in combat operations with the ISF. Training should be training
– not a ruse for keeping American troops on the front lines of
the Iraqi civil war. Of course, U.S. troops can take part in combat
operations specifically against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right.
But I hope none of them will suggest that Feingold-Reid would hurt the
troops by denying them equipment or support. There is no truth to that
argument – none. This is an absolutely phony argument used time
and again to try to get away from what this amendment actually does.
Passing this legislation would result in our troops being safely redeployed
by the deadline we set. At that point, with the troops safely out of
Iraq, funding for the war would end, with the narrow exceptions I listed.
That is what Congress did in 1993 when it voted overwhelmingly to bring
our military mission in Somalia to an end by setting a deadline after
which funding for that mission would end. And that is what Congress
must do again to terminate the President’s unending mission in
Iraq.
In order to make clear that our legislation will protect the troops,
we have added language requiring that redeployment “shall be carried
out in a manner that protects the safety and security of United States
troops.” And we have specified that nothing in this amendment
will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they
need “to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.”
I hope we won’t be hearing any more phony arguments about troops
on the battlefield somehow not getting the supplies they need.
Madam President, other amendments may set goals for redeployment or
merely call for a change in mission. Those proposals do not go far enough.
Nor is it sufficient to pass legislation that allows substantial numbers
of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely. As the President's Iraq
policy continues unchecked, we need to invoke the power and responsibility
bestowed upon us by the Constitution and bring it to a close.
This war doesn't make sense. It is hurting our country, our military,
and our credibility. It is time for this war to end. The American people
know this and they are looking for us to act. I hope we will not let
them down again.
|
