Victory in Iraq Resolution

VICTORY IN IRAQ RESOLUTION -- (House of Representatives - December 16, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution before us clearly and explicitly states that this body is committed to achieving victory in Iraq. The United States should not go back on its commitments to confront tyranny and to ``make the world safe for democracy.'' Failure is not a part of the American nature nor of our moral fiber. It is certainly not a concept that is acceptable to our men and women in the Armed Forces.

When we talk about progress in Iraq and concrete benchmarks for measuring success, we need only look back at yesterday's landmark nationwide elections in Iraq. Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission reported that at least 97.5 percent of planned voting centers were opened, monitored by up to 120,000 observers, including 800 accredited by international observer groups.

The U.N. envoy to Iraq said that the initial signs are very positive, adding that ``anecdotal evidence shows that there has been good turnout, that it was inclusive, and that security was well maintained.''

Are we not in agreement that yesterday's vivid example of democracy taking root in Iraq was a profound victory for the Iraqi people, for our sons and daughters who continue to place themselves in harm's way, and a resounding defeat to the brutal Islamic jihadists? Are we not in agreement that this election empowers the people of the region who have toiled under brutal dictatorships for far too long and that the success of democracy yesterday in Iraq aided our efforts in the global war against terror? Are we not in agreement that these elections could not have been possible without the presence of our men and women in the Armed Forces?

If we are in agreement that these most recent Iraqi elections were a success and were met with very little violence and widespread participation due to the presence of U.S. forces in support of Iraqi security, then we should be in agreement with the totality of the text of the resolution before us. We should not leave the Iraqi people at this most critical juncture. We should not leave before they are fully capable of protecting their own nation, their people, and their incipient democracy from those who seek to destroy what they have been creating because they wish to turn Iraq into a safe haven for Islamic militants and extremist elements like Iran and Syria.

This is not in our nature, Mr. Speaker. This is not what our troops want, and it is not what the Iraqi people want.

References have been made to calls for U.S. withdrawal, but let us review some of those. Iraqi officials have not made such requests to the U.S. Government. The Arab League, for example, their statement says that it was the result of undue political pressure by rogue regimes, particularly Syria and Iran, whose foreign minister was involved in the drafting of the final communique.

We are fully aware that these pariah states have a vested interest in seeing Iraq fail and assisting the foreign fighters who are launching attacks against Iraqis and our U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. We have achieved significant progress thus far in Iraq. The political and the psychological transformation that has taken place in Iraq will have long-term positive impact on our efforts to curtail the spread of Islamic extremists and jihadist activities.

Saddam Hussein would not be on trial today for his crimes against humanity, and most of the villainous heirs to his legacy would not be neutralized were it not for the critical role played by our U.S. Armed Forces personnel. Without the presence of our forces, the people of Iraq would not have had the opportunity to participate in the January 30, 2005, nationwide elections. They would not have returned to the polls on October 15, again to approve their Constitution and would not have been celebrating their new found democratic freedoms by participating in yesterday's yet another historic election.

Our mission, however, Mr. Speaker, remains only partially accomplished. Iraqi security forces are taking up more of the military burden, and the new coalition for strategy for ``clear, hold, and build'' is denying the insurgents many of their former sanctuaries.

The Iraqi Army and the police forces are growing larger, better trained, more effective. These forces are also becoming increasingly professional. Today, Iraqi security forces are now strong enough to garrison and control cleared areas, as recently illustrated by the resoundingly successful joint U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Tel Afar.

The Iraqi security forces are improving, but they cannot yet stand on their own. To abandon them now would be to leave them at the mercy of the brutal Islamic jihadists and would destroy the progress that we have achieved thus far.

Again, this is not in our nature. As clause 5 of this resolution states: Our presence in Iraq ``will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down and no longer than is required for that purpose.''

Are we not in agreement on this critical point? Is it the contention of those who oppose this resolution that we abandon the Iraqi people after they have displayed immeasurable courage in the face of attacks from Islamic jihadists and their state sponsors? We should not base our strategy on artificial timelines. The criteria governing our eventual withdrawal from Iraq must be performance based, not chronologically based. Victory defined is: ``Final and complete defeat of an enemy in a military encounter. Success in a struggle against ..... an opponent, or an obstacle.''

Who is the enemy, the common enemy of Iraq and coalition forces, the enemy of the American and Iraqi people, of those who want freedom and democracy to flourish in Iraq? They are the Islamic jihadists and the militants who are seeking to destroy what we have helped the Iraqi people accomplish.

And what is our strategy for victory? One developed by our military and policy planners in coordination with our coalition partners and our Iraqi partners. Our military and policy planners track numerous indicators to map our progress and adjust our tactics as necessary to meet our strategic goals.

I would further add, Mr. Speaker, that despite some of the references made to the alleged lack of a clear path to victory, the President has, in fact, articulated our approach in the recent National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Many of these reports with metrics on our efforts, our strategies, our goals, our accomplishments are readily available not just to us in this Chamber but to the American people. We are not just winning in Iraq, but we stand on the precipice of something far more profound: a decisive shift away from the world of brutal dictatorships which ruin their own societies through a combination of state-sponsored murder and incitement, and toward the emergence of a modern, democratic Middle East that takes its rightful place among free nations.

However, if we leave prematurely, Mr. Speaker, before the Iraqi people are able to stand on their own, we risk endangering all that we have worked so hard for and that some of our brave men and women in our Armed Forces have also sacrificed for. Let us not diminish their sacrifice by leaving their mission incomplete. Let us stand behind them as they seek to bring home a definite victory for us in this war on terror.

In closing, I would ask that we all recall the words of former President Ronald Reagan, who said: ``It is up to us ..... to work together for progress and humanity so that our grandchildren, when they look back at us, can truly say that we not only preserved the flame of freedom but cast its warmth and light further than those who came before us.''

We have prevailed in the struggle against tyranny and fascism after 40 years in a global conflict. We prevailed in the battle of ideas against communism. We will again prevail in defeating Islamic fascism if we fulfill our mission in Iraq and do not heed the nay-saying of defeatists. With freedom on our side, we cannot fail, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud of the service of my stepson, Doug Lehtinen, and his fiancee, Lindsay Nelson, who are marine officers serving in Iraq flying F-18s. They will tell us that setting an artificial deadline for withdrawal would put them in harm's way. They are fully trained military officers who understand that war is difficult; but they believe in their mission, a mission for victory in Iraq, a mission without a surrender statement.

As JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, the Senator, said just a few days ago a withdrawal, a withdrawal on an artificial timeline would discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people.

I agree with Senator Lieberman, and I hope my colleagues do as well today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov