September 6, 2007

Floor Speech

Iraq

 

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we approach the sixth anniversary of September 11, 2001, we are reminded of the consequences of ignoring the threat al-Qaida and other ``mufsidoon'' terrorists pose to our Nation. Al-Qaida and radical extremists declared war, or ``Hirabah,'' on this Nation in the early 1990s, and not until 2001 did we finally take that threat seriously. While some in our own country refuse to believe this reality, that terrorists--Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri--agree that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, our entire intelligence community testified in open session before the Senate Intelligence Committee last January that to retreat from Iraq prematurely on a political timetable would invite disaster. They testified that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces would lead to chaos, regional sectarian conflict, Shias and Sunnis killing each other. It would create a safe haven from which al-Qaida could launch further and much more robust attacks on America, and it could lead to the possible deployment of troops, this time not to a fledgling democracy but to prevent the spread of a radical Islamic Caliphate, with a capital in Baghdad and borders reaching from Spain to Indonesia. A precipitous withdrawal would also send a message to the enemies of freedom all over the world that the American people lack the resolve to win; that while our brave military cannot be defeated, politicians in Washington can; that when the going gets tough, America gets going--home.

 

   Next week, General Petraeus will deliver a progress report on the new strategy in Iraq. I expect this report to show that finally we are seeing real progress in the security situation in several key areas. This issue should not be a political one, but unfortunately there are those who are politicizing our fight there. This battle is too important to be used by those who want to declare defeat in Iraq for their own short-term political gains in 2008, claims such as, ``the war is lost,'' and claims that the success of the surge ``misses the point'' are troubling at best and dangerous at the worst.

 

   Sadly, there are some in this body who are vested politically in defeat. I find it disappointing that some in Congress would now say they will refuse even to believe General Petraeus, despite the fact Democrats and Republicans unanimously approved his appointment in February.

 

   General Petraeus takes his responsibility for our troops on the front line seriously. He is highly respected, has an outstanding military career, and should be listened to. I am confident he will deliver a report based on facts on the ground and not political conditions at home.

 

   I hope more of my colleagues will listen to our military leaders when they deliver Iraq's progress report. The worst case scenario would be for a majority in Congress to ignore our military leaders and continue to demand timetables, withdrawal dates, and attempts to control troop movements. Military decisions must be made by our military commanders on the ground, not micromanaged by Congress in our wonderful air-conditioned hall, thousands of miles away.

 

   We have seen what has happened in the past when politicians have tried to run a war--from Vietnam to the Iranian hostage crisis.

 

   On the political front, I agree that Prime Minister Maliki is not getting the job done, at least not getting the job done on the timetable that we have artificially set, but that much more work needs to be done. However, as we have seen for months now, progress is occurring from the bottom up at the local level. Our military, our leaders, and our troops in the field tell us that they are being successful. They are making progress. This is no time to quit.

 

   The Al Anbar Province, where I and several Intelligence Committee members visited a few months ago, has been demonstrating tremendous signs of progress, even back then. This was the area controlled by al-Qaida just a year ago, where al-Qaida said they were going to establish the headquarters of their evil empire, the Caliphate.

 

   In fact, today, General Jim Jones will be releasing his report that reached the same conclusion I did after my visit. You saw different headlines in the paper today about that report--not surprising. They wanted to focus on other sites. But today's Washington Post reported:

 

   U.S. and Iraqi alliances with Sunni tribal forces in Anbar province have produced ``real and encouraging'' military progress and intelligence cooperation, and there are promising signs they can be replicated elsewhere.

 

   It is here, where local tribal leaders and sheiks are cooperating with American and Iraqi Army commanders to take their neighborhoods back from al-Qaida. As a result, we have seen a decrease in sectarian violence, an increase in weapons cache discoveries, and some relative stability.

 

   This is a classic example of how General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, or COIN strategy, is working.

 

   We should have had this policy 2 or 3 years ago. But General Petraeus has written a book, the Army and Marine field manual. When he talks about dealing with the counterinsurgency, you go in, you clear, you hold, you work with local forces, and you help them rebuild. Show them that there is progress that can come when they cooperate with those of us who are trying to prevent violence and terrorism from taking over their country.

 

   When we were there, the marines in Ramadi had just finished rebuilding the Blue Mosque, the sacred point for Sunnis in Al Anbar, and they are using that. We are working with them.

 

   Our military is beginning to replicate these successful lessons in other parts of Iraq. Sure progress is slow, but progress is real. With a new counterinsurgency strategy in place, our military shows the momentum going our way, and with this momentum it is clearly the wrong time to cut the legs out from under them with a new strategy. We are witnessing the increasing likelihood that our troops can find success and return home victorious. Even previous critics such as the Brookings Institution's O'Hanlon and Pollack, writing in the New York Times, said this is ``a war we just might win.'' But let me be very clear about one thing.

 

   Our U.S. national security interest is seeing relative peace and stability established and maintained in Iraq for the short and intermediate term because only by assuring that stability, and our coalition forces working with Iraqi security forces, can we ensure we will avoid the genocide among Shias and Sunni, the opening of Iraq to a safe haven for al-Qaida and its related terrorist elements, and the likelihood of a regionwide sectarian war, bringing in other countries in the region, creating havoc, chaos, threatening Israel, cutting off oil supplies, and having an international crisis.

 

   Long term, we have an interest in seeing real reconciliation and political accommodation accomplished by the elected officials of the Iraqi Government. Iraqis are going to have to make those decisions for themselves--who does it and how they do it--but we have to realize that before you can have political compromise and success, you have to have stability.

 

   Secondly, political reconciliation takes time. It took a long time to put the United States of America together. If you read, as I hope you have, the book about Lincoln's Presidency, ``A Team of Rivals,'' you see even in 1860-1864, we were still fighting those battles in a war at the same time, but Abraham Lincoln persevered and we came through.

 

   So not only as a policymaker but as a father concerned about our future generations, I understand the tremendous sacrifice our troops have made in support of a policy in Iraq. Our troops on the ground have told me, in many different ways, they understand they are making progress. They understand they are making these sacrifices; they are willing to do this for the good of our country. One particular quote sticks in my mind when they were first told about the possibility that Congress would set arbitrary time limits for withdrawal. Their response was: We have made far too many contributions and too many sacrifices to see it all be for naught.

 

   This coming from troops on the ground who have seen their colleagues shot up and sent the belongings of lost comrades back home. They made a contribution to the peace and security of the United States, and they do not want us pulling the rug out from under them.

 

   Let's remain committed to seeing the job done to protect this country from the radical and extremist attacks of al-Qaida and others. Our Nation's security, our credibility in the world, the freedom of millions of Iraqis and many other people threatened by this kind of terrorist attempt to establish a caliphate are depending upon us.

 

   I urge my colleagues to listen carefully and accept the recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, two men of unquestioned integrity who will be presenting the situation on the ground, not as we view it on TV, not as some mischaracterize it but from the people who have the responsibility for our missions, our vitally important missions, important not only for Iraq and the Middle East but to our own national security.

 

   I yield the floor.