Statement of
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 is the first significant debate we have had on the war in Iraq since Congress passed the president's request for an authorization to invade Iraq more than four years ago. And even though our debate today is on a largely symbolic question - a non-binding resolution disapproving the president's announced plan for moving additional troops to Iraq - I believe it ought to serve as the beginning of a deeper and more thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests in the Middle East, and Iraq.
If all we do is debate the wisdom of a surge, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close.
Nevertheless, I will support this resolution disapproving the president's call for additional troops in Iraq because it runs contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton Commission), critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on the best strategic approach in Iraq. The president's plan calls for an infusion of additional soldiers - probably too few to have the desired outcome - and utilizing counterinsurgency tactics that are two years too late and that I believe will be ineffective in the context of the civil war that has emerged in Iraq.
We are also expecting General David Petraeus and our troops to operate under a complicated joint command structure with Iraqi forces and political leaders that is unprecedented in our military history and undermines the "unity of command" rule in warfare. And all this comes at a time when the death toll in Iraq is rising and the war continues to drain our national treasury, stretches our armed forces, and decreases - rather than enhances - our ability to wage an effective war against Islamic terrorism. Even as we debate a "surge" in Iraq, we should not forget Afghanistan. We will win there if we redouble our efforts now.
I opposed the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. Today, we cannot move the clock back, but we can surely 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.
I say this as a Member of the Armed Services Committee who understands the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers, including a lack of equipment and training, multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments. To be successful, U.S. forces must be trained, equipped, and ready to quickly deploy worldwide. Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission. By all measurements, we are not in a position to sustain an escalation of troops.
But I don't believe the president's rationale for the "surge" 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 goes further in suggesting that the conflict may in fact, be more complicated and worse than a civil war. Putting more American troops at risk in this kind of setting is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription for quagmire. 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 believe a policy aimed at escalating diplomatic and political efforts is preferable to one that continues to rely on our soldiers to carry the heavy burden of nation-building - a mission that soldiers are ill-equipped for without strong international support, particularly in the midst of civil war and sectarian violence. That is why 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, which should give us some flexibility to respond militarily should circumstances require it, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation and stability.
I do not believe an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense, but neither is an open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure.
As bad as the situation is in Iraq, however, 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. The President's decision to take the nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.
To do this, I believe Congress should pass a resolution that embodies the main policy elements of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, including a call for 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 believe we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq. The President misguidedly took us into war on the eve of a bitter national election. We must try hard not to compound this 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 intend to speak out loudly and often for a responsible withdrawal strategy in Iraq, but I will also offer proposals that are aimed at finding common ground. 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. Great leaders 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 us be a nation of great leaders.
