Mr. President, I would
like to speak briefly on what is a roiling debate not only in the
Senate but across the country, and that is the President's policy
with respect to Iraq. There are countless reasons the American people
have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among
them has been the administration's insistence on making promises
and assurances about progress and victory that do not appear to
be grounded in the reality of the facts. We have been told we would
be greeted as liberators. We have been promised the insurgency was
in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we
are making progress and that the Iraqis would soon stand up so we
could stand down and our brave sons and daughters could start coming
home. We have been asked to wait, we have been asked to be patient,
and we have been asked to give the President and the new Iraqi Government
6 more months, and then 6 more months after that, and then 6 more
months after that.
Now, after the loss of
more than 3,000 American lives, after spending almost $400 billion,
after Iraq has descended into civil war, we have been promised,
once again, that the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq
will, this time, be well planned, well coordinated, and well supported
by the Iraqi Government. This time, we didn't have to wait to find
out that none of this seems to be the case. Already, American military
officials have told the New York Times that there is no clear chain
of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no real indication
that the Iraqis even want such a partnership. Yesterday, Prime Minister
al-Maliki, the person whom the President said had brought this plan
to us, the man who is supposed to be our partner-in-chief for this
new plan, told foreign journalists that if the United States would
only give his Army better weapons and equipment, our soldiers could
go home.
The President's decision
to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence
and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence
of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage
this war back in 2002. Over 4 years later, we can't revisit that
decision or reverse some of the tragic outcomes, but what we can
do is make sure we provide the kind of oversight and constraints
on the President this time that we failed to do the last time.
I cannot in good conscience
support this escalation. It is a policy which has already been tried
and a policy which has failed. Just this morning, I had veterans
of the Iraq war visit my office to explain to me that this surge
concept is, in fact, no different from what we have repeatedly tried,
but with 20,000 troops, we will not in any imaginable way be able
to accomplish any new progress.
The fact is that we have
tried this road before. In the end, no amount of American forces
can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody
else's civil war. As the President's own military commanders have
said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility
for their own future. It is even eroding our efforts in the wider
war on terror as some of the extra soldiers will come directly from
Afghanistan, where the Taliban has become resurgent.
The President has offered
no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shias,
Sunnis, and Kurds toward the necessary political settlement, and
he has attached no consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail
to make progress. In fact, just last week, when I repeatedly asked
Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi Government failed
to meet the benchmarks the President has called for and says are
an integral part of their rationale for escalation, she couldn't
give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances
whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure
to make progress means the end of our military commitment, she could
not give me an answer. This is simply not good enough. When you
ask how many more months and how many more dollars and how many
more lives it will take to end the policy that everyone now knows
has not succeeded, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.
Over the past 4 years,
we have given this administration every chance to get this right,
and they have disappointed us many times. But ultimately it is our
brave men and women in uniform and their families who bear the greatest
burden for these mistakes. They have performed in an exemplary fashion.
At no stage have they faltered in the mission that has been presented
to them.
Unfortunately, the strategy,
the tactics, and the mission itself have been flawed. That is why
Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes and bring
this war to a responsible end. That is why I plan to introduce legislation
which I believe will stop the escalation of this war by placing
a cap on the number of soldiers in Iraq. I wish to emphasize that
I am not unique in taking this approach. I know Senator Dodd has
crafted similar legislation. Senator Clinton, I believe, yesterday
indicated she shared similar views. The cap would not affect the
money spent on the war or on our troops, but it would write into
law that the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should not exceed the
number that were there on January 10, 2007, the day the President
announced his escalation policy.
This measure would stop
the escalation of the war in Iraq, but it is my belief that simply
opposing the surge is not good enough. If we truly believe the only
solution in Iraq is a political one--and I fervently believe that--if
we believe a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best--perhaps
only--leverage we have to force a settlement between the country's
warring factions, then we should act on that. That is why the second
part of my legislation is a plan for phased redeployment that I
called for in a speech in Chicago 2 months ago. It is a responsible
plan that protects American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly
descend into chaos. The President must announce to the Iraqi people
that within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include
a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President
should then work with our military commanders to map out the best
plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates.
Drawing down our troops
in Iraq will put pressure on Iraqis to arrive at the political settlement
that is needed and allow us to redeploy additional troops in Afghanistan
and elsewhere in the region, as well as bring some back home. The
forces redeployed elsewhere in the region could then help to prevent
the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, something that every
international observer is beginning to worry about. It will also
reassure our allies in the Gulf. It will allow our troops to strike
directly at al-Qaida wherever it may exist and demonstrate to international
terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.
My plan would couple this
phased redeployment with an enhanced effort to train Iraqi security
forces and would expand the number of our personnel--especially
special forces--who are deployed with Iraqis as unit advisers and
would finally link continued economic aid in Iraq with the existence
of tangible progress toward reducing sectarian violence and reaching
a political settlement.
One final aspect of this
plan that I believe is critical is it would call for engagement
by the United States in a regional conference with other countries
that are involved in the Middle East--particularly our allies, but
including Syria and Iran--to find a solution to the war in Iraq.
We have to realize that neither Iran nor Syria wants to see the
security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees,
and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout
the entire region and within their own countries. So as odious as
the behavior of those regimes may be at times, it is important that
we include them in a broader conversation about how we can stabilize
Iraq.
In closing, let me say
this: I have been a consistent and strong opponent of this war.
I have also tried to act responsibly in that opposition to ensure
that, having made the decision to go into Iraq, we provide our troops,
who perform valiantly, the support they need to complete their mission.
I have also stated publicly that I think we have both strategic
interests and humanitarian responsibilities in ensuring that Iraq
is as stable as possible under the circumstances.
Finally, I said publicly
that it is my preference not to micromanage the Commander-in-Chief
in the prosecution of war. Ultimately, I do not believe that is
the ideal role for Congress to play. But at a certain point, we
have to draw a line. At a certain point, the American people have
to have some confidence that we are not simply going down this blind
alley in perpetuity.
When it comes to the war
in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience
is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have
been spent for us to trust the President on another tried-and-failed
policy, opposed by generals and experts, opposed by Democrats and
Republicans, opposed by Americans and even the Iraqis themselves.
It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their
country back, and it is time to refocus America's effort on the
wider struggle against terror yet to be won.