Iraq War Resolution

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank our leader from the Homeland Security Committee for yielding.

No congressional decision is more difficult than a vote related to war, and this vote is no different. It is especially difficult when you disagree with the President of your own political party.

I voted to support this war because I believe Iraq presented a direct threat to the United States. Iraq had, was developing, and was attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq was, at a minimum, cooperating with the funding and harboring of terrorists committed to our destruction. Saddam Hussein was repeatedly defying U.N. resolutions, contesting no-fly zones and blocking WMD inspectors. Our intelligence estimates, never 100 percent accurate, in any case, apparently overstated the immediate risk.

But the basic facts remain the same. Knowing what we know now, perhaps we could have waited another 6 to 12 months, which would have given us valuable time to solidify position in Afghanistan. But the decision to go to war was still the right decision, just possibly premature.

I would not have supported this war had the initial selling point been a goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Advancing freedom has always been an ideological goal of our Nation ever since our founding. We have long supported, from the days of Jefferson and Monroe, the causes of dissident freedom fighters. We did this in occupied Eastern Europe, in Saddam's Iraq and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

But there is a difference between aiding people fighting for freedom and doing most of the fighting for them. I stated from the beginning that after removing the direct threat of the Saddam government, it would be in our national security interests if a republican form of government, a unity government respecting the rights of others, could be established in Iraq. If this government of diverse Iraqis could prevail, it would be a model for the entire region. We needed to give them a chance for self-governance. But, and this is a big qualifier, it would ultimately be their decision, not ours.

On the news we often see Iraqis saying that Americans need to do this or that to provide security. Men and women from Fort Wayne and the rest of Indiana and America can do most of the fighting for the freedom of Iraq only for so long. It is the Iraqis' country.

We should have known this would not be easy. It is self-evident that democracy in the Muslim world is not common now nor in the past. A little bit hubris and more humility when we sent our soldiers into this conflict would have been helpful. This is not just hindsight. For example, the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, Senator RICHARD LUGAR, raised concerns over and over again that pre-planning was insufficient.

Certain basic arguments being made by the administration are simply not accurate. To insist that the war in Iraq is not a civil war when the entire world and the Americans all understand that it is, continues to undermine the credibility of those who make it.

From the beginning, it had elements of a civil war. The Sunnis had persecuted the majority Shia as well as the Kurds. Vengeance was inevitable. The United States correctly demanded that the sectarian militias be eliminated from the Iraqi national police and the military. I, like many other Members, was asked by the administration to deliver such messages to Iraqi government officials during my visits to Iraq.

Our government knew full well that a civil war was going on, even among people we selected to run the government. We had hoped that the early smaller scale civil war could be countered by a strong central government. It is now a large scale civil war, eroding the already limited power of the Iraqi Government. It is now absurd to deny it is a civil war.

Making exaggerated statements of progress in Iraq also does not pass the basic credibility test. While we have made sporadic progress, a school or a project here and there, it is apparent to any Member of Congress who visited Iraq a number of years ago and again recently visited that security has deteriorated.

Baby boomer Americans especially tend to see everything as Vietnam. A government that denies basic realities has little hope of persuading even its friends. We want our government to tell the truth, pleasant or not. These facts are foundational to the fundamental question currently before us.

It is not whether a surge can root out terrorists. Our brave men and women can do this in door-to-door bloody combat, if necessary, and we may be able with extra troops to stabilize some areas temporarily. But then what? The President has also said that unlike past efforts, this time we will hold our gains. With whom? With what?

This is the basic underlying issue. Assuming some militias are defeated and others just melt away, how do we plan to keep them from coming back? Is the surge permanent? Even if it were so, far fewer troops are required to root out terrorists than to hold gains. Will we need tens of thousands of additional soldiers to hold any gains?

The obvious premise offered by the President is that the Iraqis themselves can hold the gains. Based upon everything we have seen to date, other than in isolated cases, there is no evidence that the Iraqis will fight and die to defend their central government. I have repeatedly heard from returning soldiers that when the gunfire starts the Iraqis by and large disappear. They only seem dedicated when Shia get to kill Sunnis and vice versa.

By being bogged down as the main security force in Iraq and increasingly hostile cities, we are undermining our long-term potential to fight the war on terror.

For years, we have now been utilizing our National Guard and our Reserves as if they were regular military. Many are about to enter their second 12-month-plus tour of duty in combat, something historically many regular military veterans did not do. Because of the heavy usage, we are starting to short training funds and repair funds for those units. We are finding that employers are getting increasingly nervous about disruptions to their firms. Family objections are becoming more intense. Recruiters are running into increasing resistance.

As for our overused regular military, they are facing near exhaustion. What will be the long-term impact on these forces? What impact will this continued burning up of huge sums of military dollars do to our long-term ability to fight?

It has been said many times by defenders of this surge that Iraq is the place the enemy has chosen to fight, and this is the place that we must fight. That is partly true. Hezbollah has chosen to fight us on many fronts. Iran is a threat itself, not just in funding Iraq. Terrorists attacked in Madrid, London, Afghanistan, Pakistan and many other places throughout the world, and they continue to try to attack us in the United States. Iraq is not the only place terrorists have chosen to fight.

Furthermore, we face threats from North Korea, as the new Castro, Hugo Chavez, presents other challenges. We are sobered by the recent destruction of a satellite by China, potentially the most significant threat we face.

If we burn up the support of the American people, our military's ability to recruit, the usage of our Guard and Reserves in Iraq, how do we defend ourselves elsewhere?

It is not that this effort in Iraq is a failure, as some liberals claim. We have seen the governments in Libya and Pakistan significantly alter their ways when it comes to supporting terrorists. Hostile governments that harbor terrorists have to ask themselves whether it is worth the risk of military action by the United States, something Iran appears to be debating. And, most importantly, this fact is indisputable: Since 9/11, terrorists have not succeeded in any attacks on American soil.

Because of the bravery and valor of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have disrupted the terrorists' ability to gather and plan new methods of attacking us. If they surface, we get them.

During this period, we have had time to make significant progress in homeland security. While you may have heard that our Southwest border is not exactly airtight, progress certainly has been made. Every month we make additional progress. Our airports are more secure. Our ports are more secure. The PATRIOT Act has given us the ability to track and hunt down terrorists. We have improved both inside the U.S. and around the world our ability to track finances, communications and movement of terrorists.

The sacrifice of our brave men and women in the military and their families bought the United States Government valuable time to further prepare our domestic and worldwide ability to cope with terrorism. We will never achieve 100 percent success. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq took the battle to them, rather than requiring us to fight at home.

But we cannot sustain this intense effort indefinitely. Complete victory over terrorism is unlikely ever to occur. Sometimes you have to reposition and prepare for the broader battle, not exhaust yourself on just one front and then risk defeat in the overall conflict.

I beseech our President, Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice and others, never to give up the war on terrorism, but to understand that without significant tactical drawdowns in Iraq our entire counterterrorism and military efforts are threatened. Our Nation can ill afford another decade of defeatism and retreat that seized the United States after Vietnam.

All this said, I am going to vote ``no' on the resolution. The resolution is no surge protection. The battle has already begun. Most of us have individually clearly stated our views and continue to do so.

For the United States Congress as a corporate body to deliver a public rebuke to the Commander in Chief during a battle that is already commenced would potentially put our soldiers at additional risk and confuse the world.

It is one thing for us to argue about strategy and tactics. It is another to have Congress openly defy the President. The world already knows we have deep divisions in America. The terrorists already know we disagree. But they also need to know that when the fight starts, as Americans we stand united.

The fact is while I do not believe that the surge will succeed, none of us actually knows that it will not work. At this point it seems to me that our position as a Congress should be to encourage success in this mission. We need to support the Iraqis as they take increasing responsibility. What the world should see from us at least is shared hope for victory, not defeatism.

But the President does need to understand that opposition to the surge is not just among Democrats. It is even among his strongest supporters. Some of us who deeply share his passion to fight terrorism fear that he is potentially endangering his past successes, as well as our Nation's ability to continue the war on terror beyond this administration.

I hope and pray that the surge succeeds. But if it does not, we need to try a dramatically different approach that does not totally abandon Iraq, the region or the war on terror.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov