Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On Opposing the President’s Iraq Escalation Policy and Using
the Power of the Purse to End Our Military Involvement in Iraq
February 16, 2007
Watch
the video of Senator Feingold's remarks.
Listen to the
audio of Senator Feingold's remarks.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are approaching the four-year anniversary
of one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our country’s
history. In March 2003, with the prior authorization of Congress, the
President took this country to war in Iraq. Almost four years later,
virtually every objective observer – and, more importantly, the
American people as a whole – agree that the President’s
policy has failed.
Now even the President acknowledges his plan hasn’t worked, though
his solution is not a new plan but a troop escalation. Of course, sending
more troops to implement what is essentially the same flawed strategy
makes no sense. And the American people agree that it makes no sense.
And most of my colleagues agree that it makes no sense.
So the question becomes, with a President unable or unwilling to fix
a flawed policy that is jeopardizing our national security and military
readiness, what should we in Congress do about our country’s involvement
in this disastrous war? Do we do nothing, and hope that the President
will put things right, when he has shown time and time again that he
is incapable of doing so? Do we simply tell the President that we aren’t
happy with the way the war is going and that we hope he will change
course? Or Mr. President do we take strong, decisive action to fix the
President’s mistaken, self-defeating policies?
It’s pretty clear which course of action I support. I think it’s
the course of action that the American people called for in the November
elections. It’s the course of action that our national security
needs, so we don’t continue to neglect global threats and challenges
while we focus so much of our resources and our efforts on Iraq. It’s
the course of action that will support, that will actually support,
our brave troops and their families.
Mr. President, We must end our involvement in this tragic and misguided
war. The President will not do so. Therefore, Congress must act.
So far, Congress has not lived up to that responsibility. Instead of
taking strong action in the Senate, instead of considering binding legislation
that fixes the President’s flawed Iraq strategy, we tied ourselves
into knots last week in a convoluted and misguided effort to achieve
a consensus that would have essentially reaffirmed congressional authorization
for continuing our military involvement in Iraq. Of course here I am
referring to the resolution proposed by the senior Senator from Virginia.
This resolution was portrayed, at least at first, by members of both
parties as an important, symbolic rebuke of the president's Iraq policy.
In fact, it was not a rebuke at all. In parts, it read like a reauthorization
of the war, rejecting troop redeployment and specifically authorizing
"vigorous operations" in a critical region in Iraq.
Now when debate on the Warner resolution was blocked, we had a chance
to get things right. And I am glad that our majority leader, Senator
Reid, has chosen to bring up the resolution being debated in the House
today expressing support for the troops and simply opposition to the
so-called surge. Now this body, the Senate, should go on record in opposition
to, or support of, the President’s plan.
I will vote to allow the debate on the resolution to take place. And
I hope I will have the opportunity to actually vote for the resolution.
I have yet to hear any convincing argument that sending 21,500 more
troops to Iraq will bring about the political solution that is needed
to end violence in that country.
Mr. President, the President of the United State’s decision to
send more troops is based on two flawed assumptions. It assumes first,
that the presence of even more of our service members will help Iraqi
troops improve security in Baghdad, and second, that with improved security,
Iraqi politicians can then achieve national reconciliation. Now the
recent declassified NIE shot holes in both those assumptions. It said
that the Iraqi Security Forces “will be hard pressed in the next
12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities.”
And, “even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all
attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi
leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation
in the time frame of this Estimate.” And obviously Mr. President,
those are direct quotes not me characterizing the NIE.
In other words Mr. President, in the best case scenario, the best case
scenario, U.S. forces provide a little security that Iraqi forces can’t
sustain on their own and that Iraqi politicians won’t use to settle
their entrenched differences. Now that doesn’t sound like a plan
for success.
Now, some of my colleagues, even those who don’t support sending
more troops to Baghdad, have spoken in favor of continued and even increased
U.S. military operations in al Anbar province. Some of them even suggest
that our troops should be combating an insurgency there. Now this, apart
from everything else, is a recipe for disaster. Al Anbar province is
where a majority of U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. The insurgency
there, as well as general opposition to the U.S. presence and to the
Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, is fueled by the Sunnis' political
and economic grievances. Conducting targeted missions to take out terrorists
makes sense; but using U.S. troops to put down an insurgency doesn't.
Maintaining – or, worse yet, increasing -- a substantial U.S.
presence in a primarily Sunni area, without a political solution, means
nothing less than a continuation of our unending, and self-defeating,
policies in Iraq.
Clearly, Mr. President, the President’s decision to send more
troops makes no sense. But I have to say that simply passing a nonbinding
resolution criticizing it makes no sense either – if we just stop
there. We need to go further and so we need to do it soon.
Let me remind my colleagues – when the voters rejected the President’s
Iraq policy in November, they weren’t rejecting an escalation.
That option wasn’t even on the table then. Who was talking about
an escalation during that campaign? Certainly, the presiding officer
knows well what was being discussed. They were rejecting the President’s
policy of trying to achieve a political solution in Iraq with a massive
and unlimited military presence. After delaying action for a couple
of months, the President just plain ignored overwhelming public sentiment,
the advice of members of both parties, and the views of military and
foreign policy experts when he proposed his escalation. The administration
turned its back on the American people. We in Congress should not follow
suit. We have a responsibility to our constituents, and to our men and
women in uniform. If no one will listen to, and act on, the will of
the American people, then there is something seriously wrong with our
political system.
After almost four years of a disastrous policy, we must bring our troops
out of Iraq. To do otherwise is to ignore public outrage over the war
and to ignore the many other, pressing national security priorities
that we are neglecting in favor of a myopic focus on Iraq. The American
people recognize that there is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil
war. And as long as we focus disproportionate attention and resources
on Iraq, we will not be able to counter the full range of threats that
we face in places like Afghanistan, in Somalia, and many other places
around the world.
So Congress must use its power. It must use its power of the purse
to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Mr. President, let’s
not be intimidated by the intentionally misleading rhetoric of the White
House and its allies when they try to prevent any discussion of any
real action by Congress to end the war. This isn’t about “cutting
off funds for troops.” It’s about cutting off funds for
the war. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support
our troops and give them the resources and support they need. By setting
a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as I have
proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.
That’s how you get ‘em out of harm’s way. By getting
them out of there.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional
authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. Last month, I
chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Exercising Congress’s
Constitutional Power to End a War.”
Now without exception, every witness – those called by the majority
and the minority. Those who have had a career more focused on the executive
branch than the legislative branch – All of them did not challenge
the constitutionality of Congress’ authority to end a war. Lou
Fisher of the Library of Congress is acclaimed as one of the foremost
experts on presidential war power – in fact, he literally wrote
the book on this topic. He testified that Congress does not simply have
the power – he said it has a responsibility to exercise it when
needed. He said, and I quote:
"… is the continued use of military force and a military
commitment in the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once
you decide that, if you decide it is not in the national interest,
you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S. troops in harm's
way."
The argument that cutting of funding for a flawed policy would hurt
the troops, and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm’s way
supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the war,
we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq. Walter Dellinger of Duke
Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal he said:
"There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops.
There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There
would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would
not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would
simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized."
Instead of allowing the president's failed policy to continue, Congress
can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in
the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do
in my bill, that important counterterrorism and training missions are
still carried out.
We should be coming up with a strategy for post-redeployment Iraq and
the region that is squarely within the context of the global fight against
al-Qaida. So that means replacing a massive, unsustainable and unlimited
military mission with a long-term strategy for mitigating the mess left
behind by this war. With such a strategy, we can redirect substantially
more resources and attention to the fight against al-Qaida and other
affiliated or sympathetic international terrorist organizations.
As long as this President goes unchecked by Congress, our troops will
remain needlessly at risk, and our national security will be compromised.
So let me tell my colleagues – regardless of what happens with
this resolution, this is just a first step. Worthwhile, but just a first
step. And the first step must be followed by stronger steps. And it
must be done quickly. I intend to keep pushing until the Senate votes
to end our involvement in the Iraq war. And eventually this will happen,
because this is what the strong majority of the American people want.
Congress may be able to put off its day of reckoning temporarily; the
Administration can continue down the same failed path a while longer;
but all of us ignore the will of the American people at our peril.
So, let’s have this debate. And let’s do it openly and
honestly. Let’s not pretend anyone wants to deny our troops the
equipment and resources they need. Let’s not suggest that opposing
the President’s strategy is unpatriotic, and that it would give
aid and comfort to the enemy, that it would somehow weaken the resolve
of our troops.
Those claims are outrageous, they are offensive, and they are untrue.
Do my colleagues believe that the American people gave aid and comfort
to the enemy when they rejected the President’s Iraq policy in
November? Are the overwhelming majority of our constituents who oppose
this war trying to undermine the troops? Of course not, Mr. President.
So how could anyone suggest that Congress actually acting on the will
of the American people undermines the troops or emboldens the enemy?
Our troops are undermined by a policy that places them in harm’s
way unnecessarily. And our enemy – our true enemy, al Qaeda and
its allies – is emboldened by a U.S. strategy that neglects global
challenges and instead just focuses on a single country. It is unfortunate
that those who wish to defend this strategy would resort to these kinds
of charges.
Let’s do the job of the Senate and have full, open debate and
votes on fixing our Iraq policy. Let’s not pretend such a debate
would harm our national security. And let’s not tell ourselves
that it’s up to just the President to fix the horrible situation
that his failed policies have created. It’s our responsibility
to act, too. Congress made the tragic mistake of authorizing this war
over four years ago and now Congress now Congress also has the job of
bringing it to a close so that we can refocus on the terrorist and other
global threats that have been neglected way too much over the past four
years. |
