Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. Let me just say I am anticipating somewhere around 12 or 15 minutes. In October 2002, this body saw fit to authorize, by a large majority, the use of force against…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
Let me just say I am anticipating somewhere around 12 or 15 minutes.
In October 2002, this body saw fit to authorize, by a large majority, the use of force against Iraq. Specifically the resolution authorizes the President: to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
I remind my colleagues that we did so because of two important reasons--the same two reasons offered by the President to the American public.
First, Saddam Hussein was in breach of more than a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions. He refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors even after a decade of sanctions, and rejected proposal after proposal to verify that he did not have such weapons.
Second, after September 11, it was clear that America could not afford to allow imminent threats to our Nation go unopposed. At the time, Iraq represented a dangerous crossroad between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In the context of Saddam's hostile intentions, it was a nexus that we could not ignore.
When critics attempt to cover up their support for the use of force against Iraq, they damage U.S. credibility overseas and send mixed messages to our servicemembers. Even more dangerously, they encourage an enemy who believes America will give up when the fighting gets tough.
Of course, there is no doubt that the strategic imperatives in Iraq have changed since 2002. I will readily admit that this fight is one that we fully recognize. But that in no way diminishes the importance of our mission there now. We have a vital national interest to remain in Iraq and help maintain a secure and stable nation.
The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central in their war against the civilized world. They are committed to fighting there and will not stop unless we defeat them. If we have to fight, it is preferable to fight on their own soil.
They have also made it clear that they will not stop with Iraq. They will strike Iraq's neighbors as they did in Jordan and Lebanon. They will strike Europe as they did in the Madrid bombings. And, they will not hesitate to strike America again as they did on September 11.
And yet now, in this body, we are debating another resolution, but one that does not hold any legal weight; a resolution that would tie the hands of our soldiers in the field by limiting their options, lower their morale, and harm their efforts in Iraq. I am convinced that a long-term stable Iraq is in the best interest of our national security, and as I have said many times before, the price of failure in Iraq is too great to walk away now.
We should not forfeit our progress in Iraq to meet arbitrary deadlines whether they are in the short or in the long term. We should not think about giving up when our men and women in uniform who have achieved so much. Such defeatism encourages the terrorists, undermines our efforts to persuade other nations to join us, and opens the door to attacks here at home. We must stand firm. We must stand strong.
Thus, I support the President's plan to move forward in trying to secure Baghdad.
One of the keys to success in Iraq, I believe, is obtaining a sincere commitment from the Iraqi Prime Minister to get the Iraqi government to play a much stronger role in the destiny of Iraq.
President Bush is confident that we now have that commitment and I think that this will have a major impact on our new efforts to bring stability to Baghdad.
I am supportive of this new strategy because it contains a much stronger commitment from Iraqis, in terms of their share of force strength and their financial share of the costs of the war, and includes new thresholds for the Iraqis to meet. To date, the Iraqis have become too reliant on U.S. troops and U.S. dollars. This plan shows a new commitment from the Iraqis to step up to the plate and fight for their country's future.
I am optimistic that the President's shift in direction was needed, and may have already resulted in two positive results:
No. 1, Iraq's prime minister dropped his protection of an anti- American cleric's Shiite militia after U.S. intelligence convinced him the group was infiltrated by death squads; and
No. 2, recently, U.S. forces arrested the top aide to radical cleric al-Sadr in a raid. I think this signals that the important change in our strategy shows hope for success and that Iraq is ready to come forward with a renewed commitment to solving its problems.
Mr. President, I enter in the Record the following newspaper articles describing these accounts.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2007]
Key Aide to Sadr Arrested in Baghdad--Iraqi-Led Operation Part of
Broader Push
(By Ernesto Londono)
U.S.-backed Iraqi forces arrested a top aide to anti-
American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in eastern Baghdad on
Friday, amid growing signs of stepped-up efforts to quell
Sadr and his supporters.
U.S. military officials said in November that Sadr's Mahdi
Army militia represents the greatest threat to Iraq's
security. U.S. and Iraqi forces are preparing a renewed
effort to pacify Baghdad, including the deployment of
additional U.S. troops.
Abdul Hadi al-Daraji, Sadr's media director in Baghdad, was
arrested at his house in the neighborhood of Baladiyat, near
the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City, shortly after
midnight, said Sadr spokesman Abdul Razak al-Nadawi.
The spokesman said a guard was killed during the operation.
At least two other aides were taken into custody, according
to a statement released by the U.S. military.
The statement did not identify Daraji by name, but said the
main suspect was involved in the assassination of numerous
members of Iraq's security forces and is ``affiliated with
illegal armed group cells targeting Iraqi civilians for
sectarian attacks.'' The military said the arrest was the
result of an ``Iraqi-led'' operation.
Nadawi said ``the occupation forces are provoking Sadr . .
. by these daily operations or every-other-day operations.''
The spokesman added that the cleric's followers ``are the
only ones demanding and putting a timetable for the
occupation withdrawal.''
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has been
pressured by the Bush administration to bring the Mahdi Army
and other Shiite militias under control, was not forewarned
about the arrest, said Ali Dabbagh, a spokesman for Maliki.
Dabbagh said the prime minister was not notified about every
impending high-profile arrest.
``No one is untouchable for the security forces,'' Dabbagh
said. ``At the same time, no one was interested to go into a
fight with the Sadr movement.'' Sadr, whose supporters hold
30 seats in parliament, is a key supporter of Maliki, who is
a Shiite, but the cleric is also widely seen as an instigator
of the country's sectarian violence.
Neither Dabbagh nor the U.S. military said whether Daraji
had been charged with a crime. ``Definitely, if he's not
charged, he will be released in a respectful way,'' Dabbagh
said.
Sadr said in an interview with an Italian newspaper
published Friday that a crackdown had begun and that 400 of
his men had been arrested, according to the Associated Press.
Maliki told reporters this week that 430 Mahdi Army members
had been arrested in recent days, but Nadawi said Thursday
that the arrests stretched back to August 2004.
In the interview, Sadr said his militiamen would not fight
back during the Muslim holy month of Muharram, which started
Friday for Sunnis and begins Saturday for Shiites, saying it
was against the faith to kill at that time.
``Let them kill us. For a true believer there is no better
moment than this to die: Heaven is ensured,'' he was quoted
as saying. ``After Muharram, we'll see.''
Also on Friday, the U.S. military reported the death of an
American soldier killed Thursday by an improvised explosive
device.
The soldier, who was not identified pending notification of
relatives, was traveling in a convoy conducting an escort
mission in a neighborhood in northwest Baghdad when the blast
occurred. Three other soldiers were injured.