National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, we are gathered here at this early morning hour, as we have now for hour after hour, to talk about the situation in Iraq. We are here in particular to focus on one amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment. I rise this morning to support that amendment for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons I think it should be passed is not just because of the policy contained within it but also because it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the product of a lot of work over a long period of time. Many months of work have gone into this important amendment.

The question we face is very basic. It is the same question we have faced for a long time when it comes to the policy in Iraq. The question is, Where do you stand? Do you stand for a new direction in Iraq, a new policy, or do you stand for the other side of the coin, more of the same, stay the course, supporting the President's policy?

I argue to a large extent what has happened in the Congress the last couple of years, including this year by some Members of the House and Senate, is rubberstamping of the Bush policy in Iraq. That is what we are here to talk about: Where do you stand? You are either on one side or the other. I argue that we should all stand for a new direction for a variety of reasons.

We know the numbers pretty well: 3,600 Americans--more than that now--have lost their lives. From my home State of Pennsylvania, 69 lives have been lost. They gave, as Abraham Lincoln said, the last full measure of devotion to their country. The number we don't talk enough about is the number of wounded. Nationally, over 25,000 have been wounded. Again, in Pennsylvania, the number is very high as well. Over 1,100 Pennsylvanians have been wounded. Even that doesn't give the full sense of what we are talking about. Many of these soldiers have been grievously, permanently, irreparably wounded in this conflict. So we are thinking about them today. We are thinking about those who perished already. We are thinking about their families who have had to endure this suffering and trauma and heartache for a long time now.

The troops have done their job. There was a lot of talk in the last couple of hours, last night and this morning, and I am sure it will go on into tomorrow, about defeat, that if this amendment is adopted, that somehow there will be a defeat. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for a moment. Our troops have done their job. They took down a dictator. They allowed a government to take shape in a country. They have done their job.

It is about time that, as the troops have done their job, this Congress and this President do our jobs. One of the jobs we should never ask our troops to do is what we have asked them to do at least in the last couple of months, if not for more than a year. Unlike any American fighting men and women in the history of the country, this Government has asked our troops to referee a civil war. We should never ask Americans to referee a civil war, not in this war and not in any war.

All this talk about defeat not only misses the point, it is misleading. I am afraid it is deliberately misleading. To adopt this amendment is not adopting defeat. Adopting this amendment is about talking about a light at the end of the tunnel and to make sure we make the right decision on this policy.

We hear a lot about Levin-Reed. Let me spend 30 seconds on who LEVIN and REED are. Senator CARL LEVIN and Senator JACK REED are both members of the Armed Services Committee. They bring to bear decades of experience in this body combined when they talk about the war in Iraq and when they talk about armed services and defense matters. They both bring distinguished references even beyond their service on that committee. Some people in this body remember that Senator JACK REED was an Army Ranger and paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division. Senator CARL LEVIN, long a supporter of a strong national defense, was given in 2003 the Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest honor given to a civilian. So these are not two rookies talking about our policy in Iraq; these are people of broad experience who have already proven their credentials in supporting the armed services. They are also people who have worked very hard with the other Members of the Senate over many years to get this right.

I mentioned before that several Senators on the Republican side are cosponsors. I won't do biographical sketches of each of them, but suffice it to say, there is an awful lot of military and U.S. Senate experience with the cosponsors of this amendment.

What is this amendment? What does it say? It says a number of things. I
won't read all of it, of course, but it does talk about, in the opening lines of this amendment, a deadline for commencement of a reduction of forces. It says that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of U.S. forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the act. It talks in subpart (b) about a comprehensive strategy, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy. It talks about sustained engagement with a focus on stability in Iraq. It also speaks to an international mediator in Iraq to help our Government get this policy right. Finally, the amendment speaks of a limited presence of our troops in Iraq and to focus the mission on protecting the United States and coalition personnel, infrastructure, training and equipping, providing support for Iraqi security forces and, thirdly, engaging in targeted counterterrorism.

It talks about a limited presence and a limited mission. But it doesn't talk about, as some have mischaracterized it, a precipitous withdrawal. Just because you say that 100 times, as the other side has said it hour after hour, doesn't mean it is true. That is not what we are talking about here.

A couple of months ago, almost more than 6 months ago now, the President justified his surge policy by arguing that additional U.S. forces would provide security in Baghdad and other areas, providing so-called breathing space. Remember what the President said at that time, way back in January:

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act.

So said the President back in January. Six months later, any fair and objective evaluation of the situation in Iraq would conclude that the surge strategy has not succeeded and the Iraqi Government has failed to follow through on its promises. It should come as no surprise the American people no longer support an open-ended involvement of our combat forces in this growing civil war. We know it from the numbers on sectarian violence. We know the violence that has moved from one part of the country to another. We also know that despite the President's pledges, there is no substantive evidence Iraqi security forces are successfully holding territory that has been cleared of insurgents and militia fighting forces by U.S. troops. When it comes to the clear and hold strategy, there is a lot of clearing, but the holding remains woefully inadequate.

We know the problems with the Iraqi Government: Cabinet members boycotting meetings, the Iraqi Government talking about taking a break for 30 days, on and on. The evidence is clear that they have not made the kinds of commitments they should be making to meet the benchmarks and to inspire confidence in our country that this is the kind of political commitment we are going to need to bring stability.

I have to say when it comes to what the President says, and who pays the price, it is very clear what happens. Every time the President asks for more time, every time the President says we need to stay the course, every time the President says: Ratify my policy yet again, every time the President says: Just give us a little more time, we will get this right this time--every time he promises, and it does not come true, and every time he asks for more support, who pays the price for that?

It is not a Senator or a Congressman or the President. It is no one in his civilian leadership. In fact, it is not a lot of Americans. Every time the President asks for more time on his policy in Iraq, there is only one group of Americans that pays the price for that: the troops and their families. Over and over and over again, they pay with their sacrifice. They do all the dying, all the bleeding for this policy. Yet the President talks about this policy as if it is a Democratic and Republican fight. No, this is about the troops in the field. They are paying the price over and over again.

I will make one more point because I am short on time.

When it comes to who is doing the fighting in Iraq against us, the President said the other day: ``The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.'' Actually, he is not accurate when he says that. There is a group in Iraq consisting primarily of Sunni extremists and relying on the assistance of foreign fighters seeking to intensify sectarian conflict and create unacceptable levels of violence. They were founded in 2003, after the invasion, and this group goes by the name of al-Qaida in Iraq.

While this group draws inspiration from the al-Qaida that attacked the United States on September 11, the two groups are distinct enemies. Our intelligence community has reported that the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi and draws its financing from kidnapping and other local crimes, and seeks largely to incite ethnic cleansing and massacres against Shiite militias. But there is absolutely no evidence--no evidence--that this group is responsible for various terrorist plots in Western Europe or the United States.

We saw in the last couple of hours the report that al-Qaida around the world is as strong as they were on September 11, 2001. So how can it be--if the President is telling us the truth, and if the President's policy is right--how can it be that we made this commitment in Iraq, with all the mistakes of our civilian leadership, all the incompetence of our civilian leadership--despite the brave and noble service of our troops--how can that be with this commitment in Iraq at the same time that al-Qaida is as strong as it was on September 11, 2001?

No, I think it is very clear that this vote and this choice is very simple. We can either stay the course or we can chart a new course. That is what this is about.

I say in conclusion, this is also about whether this Congress will do what it must to prove ourselves worthy of the valor of our troops. That is part of what we have to do. I am not saying one amendment or one vote or one debate will do that. We have a long way to go to prove ourselves worthy of their valor. But I think this amendment is one way to move in that direction, one way to show our troops and their families that we will do everything possible to get this policy right.

I yield the floor.

Source