REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL
On H. Con. Res. 63,
Disapproving of the decision of the President to deploy additional troops to Iraq
February 14, 2007
Madam Speaker, this debate is long overdue.
It is our first extended and substantive debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave the president the authority to invade more than four years ago.
But if we do nothing more than debate the president’s escalation plan, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to begin to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close.
And while the resolution before us is a largely symbolic and non-binding expression of Congressional opinion, it can be – and I think it should be – the opening part of a longer, thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only in Iraq but the entire Middle East.
So, this resolution is a start – and I will vote for it because I agree with the message it sends.
The resolution expresses disapproval of the president’s sending more troops to Iraq – an action that is contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group, critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The president’s escalation is probably too small to be effective. And adopting new counterinsurgency tactics comes two years too late.
In addition, the President is calling on General Petraeus and our troops to operate under a complicated joint command structure, involving Iraqi forces and politicians, that is unprecedented in America’s military history.
I think the resolution represents the correct response to these facts – it expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with a policy of military escalation.
Madam speaker, as we speak the death toll in Iraq rises and the war continues to drain our national treasury, stretch our armed forces, and weaken our capacity to effectively counter Islamic terrorism.
Even as the Administration plows ahead with its “surge” in Iraq, war still rages in Afghanistan and the security situation there is getting more perilous.
Congress needs to send the message that things must change.
I opposed the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. But today we must focus on the future.
We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse.
We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq – we should be scaling back.
We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter – not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.
As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I know about the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers.
They lack enough equipment and training. They are experiencing multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments.
But to be successful, our men and women must be properly trained, equipped, and ready to quickly deploy worldwide. Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission.
In short, the Administration’s policies have brought us to the point where we not only are not able to sustain an escalation in Iraq but also are not fully prepared for other contingencies.
But that is not the only reason I oppose the escalation.
I don’t think the president’s rationale for it makes sense, no matter our readiness levels.
The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term “civil war” accurately describes aspects of the Iraq conflict – and suggests that the conflict may in fact, be worse than a civil war. Putting more American troops at risk is not a recipe for victory.
As a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.
So what should be the way forward? How should Congress respond?
I favor a reduction of military forces in Iraq, and a phased redeployment of our armed forces to border regions in places like Anbar province and the Kurdish areas of Iraq.
That can give us flexibility to act militarily in Iraq if necessary, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation and stability.
I do not think an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense.
As bad as the situation is in Iraq, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region – not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush Administration’s failures there.
We should adopt the main policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including stronger efforts at diplomacy in the region and internationally.
It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demands that we engage in serious regional talks, including talks with our adversaries, Syria and Iran.
Finally, I am convinced we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq.
The President misguidedly rushed us into war. We must not compound that error by turning a debate on Iraq into a partisan game of one-upmanship where legitimate disagreement with the Administration’s plan for escalation is called a betrayal of our troops or where resistance to immediate withdrawal is called war-mongering.
For my part, I will speak out loudly and often for a responsible military disengagement from Iraq, but I will also offer proposals that are aimed at finding common ground. In this regard, I will be introducing legislation that looks beyond the “surge” and toward the necessary and inevitable contingency planning that will be needed if we are to avoid deeper and more catastrophic scenarios in Iraq and the region.
Madam Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high. The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today.
We should adopt this resolution to send a signal, but then we must try to rise above our partisan instincts and salvage what we can from a terrible and deteriorating situation.
Nations make mistakes. Great nations acknowledge mistakes, learn, and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let’s be a great nation.
