H. Con. Res. 63 re: Iraq Surge

H. Con. Res. 63, 110th Congress: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Yesterday, the debate on the Iraq surge began. Each representative is given 5 minutes to give their position on the concurrent resolution, which votes against deploying another 21,000 troops in Iraq. The House is expected to vote on the matter on Friday.

Of course, I was excited to hear what my congressman has to say. After all, I became curious about his position on the issue a couple of days ago. I've been wanting to know. But here it is now. I expected him to side with Dubya for they are both Republicans. Unfortunately, I was not able to watch him give out his speech probably because I was trapped by a phone call from a constituent.

Mister Speaker:

In this debate, our first care should be for the safety and morale of the men and women serving in the American armed forces. Whatever the way forward, nothing said here should be heard by friend or foe as disrespect for the work and sacrifice of those who willingly fight our battles in a dangerous world.

It took U.S. and Coalition forces less than three weeks to topple a brutal Iraqi regime that had held an iron grip on power for almost thirty years. Since then, they've battled a growing insurgency and rampant sectarian violence with professionalism and bravery. Of all the instruments of national power we could and should be discussing today -- diplomacy, economic policy, intelligence and warfare -- our military is the only one that has performed predictably, consistently, and well.

Still, knowing what we know today, after almost four years of attempted nation-building on the shifting sands of Iraq, the plan to put twenty-one thousand more Americans in harm's way there has to be viewed with a cold-eyed skepticism born of that hard experience. Putting American troops between feuding Sunni and Shia in the middle of Baghdad is a mistake. This is the appropriate place for Iraqis, not Americans.

The Iraq Study Group concluded that, "Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation." They quoted a U.S. general who said if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." I agree.

Like many Members, Republicans and Democrats, I voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, just as I supported President Clinton's decision to take military action against the former Yugoslavia. Four years ago, we were trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations resolutions on disarmament and weapons inspections. Only a credible threat of force could possibly convince him it was finally in his interest to respect the lawful demands of the international community.

Voting to support the President strengthened his hand in the diplomatic effort to get the Iraq regime to comply peacefully. Saddam Hussein chose not to comply. When diplomacy fails, and military action becomes necessary, politics should stop at the water's edge and every American should stand united behind the Commander in Chief.

But no grant of authority is a blank check. Today, naive notions about a quick or tidy victory in Iraq have given way to far grittier options on how best to achieve our strategic objectives in that nation, in the region, and in the global struggle against Islamist extremism.

We want the President to succeed, but we are disappointed our hopes and good intentions for Iraq remain unrealized. Many are frustrated by the mistakes and missed opportunities that plagued this noble but star-crossed effort. Poor planning for occupation and reconstruction of a devastated nation, and missteps by the Coalition Provisional Authority, allowed the insurgency and long-simmering factional hatreds to erupt and take root.

At this point, it seems clear to many that only Iraqi interests, not ours, can be advanced on the streets of Baghdad. U.S. and Coalition forces were tasked as protectors of Iraq's hard won sovereignty, not referees in unchecked sectarian vendettas. From here, the "surge" looks much more like the status quo on steroids than a serious alternative policy to reach a realistic goal. Some way must be found to cut the Gordian knot that ties us to an Iraq strategy that says we can neither win nor leave.

Moreover, so long as American troops are the ones on the ground, taking fire and being objects for sectarian and terrorist hatred, other stakeholders, who have more at stake in the region, will refuse to step forward.

But whatever else it might accomplish, this resolution still doesn't do enough to illuminate a new, sustainable strategy in Iraq. The profound and complex issues central to our international position today cannot be reduced to simplistic political statements. We took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not just strike poses on how that duty applies to the key question before us as a nation. In the end, these are purely political statements, when the debate we really need to have is about the most apolitical subject of all -- national security in a time of global peril.

Today, the House sends a purely symbolic message to the President. It is a message that will also be heard by our troops, by the Iraqi people who've relied on us, and by our enemies who are hoping we'll quit the fight soon. It doesn't say enough. We should be debating the elements of an effective policy to stem the tide of jihadism infecting growing swaths of the globe. This resolution stays only what some Members are against; nothing about what we are for.

The Iraq Study Group Report put forth seventy-nine specific recommendations, many focused on the need for far greater engagement of regional powers -- friends and foes -- in taking realistic steps to stabilize Iraq. I joined my colleague Rep. Frank Wolf in supporting creation of the Iraq Study Group and I wish he and others were allowed to offer those recommendations for discussion by the House. Those are the debates, and the votes, I'd hoped to participate in today.

The lack of substantive alternatives before us, particularly on the question of adequate funding for deployed troops, betrays the Majority's empty, conflicted position on Iraq: Against the President, but for nothing. The Senate majority attempted to straddle the same contradiction recently, confirming without dissent the new commanding general for Iraq while claiming to be against the very mission they know he's been ordered to undertake there.

On the genuine questions of security and strategy in Iraq we cannot remain, as Winston Churchill admonished, "Decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-power to be impotent."

Mister Speaker, we must decide, and I have decided, to support this resolution because it is the only option made in order by the Majority today to engage this House in the formulation of our Iraq policy. But once troops are committed by the Commander in Chief and are engaging the enemy, symbolic gestures like this must confront the more complex realities of how to support those forces in the safe and speedy completion of their mission.

I thought this was a good speech. Thank you for supporting the resolution Boss.