Debating the anti-surge resolution

A U.S. Soldier with the Multi-Iraqi Transitional Team, 4th Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division positively identifies and engages an enemy target during an operation in Buhriz, Iraq, Feb. 11, 2007. (DoD photo)

(Washington, D.C.): As a public service, the Center for Security Policy is providing excerpts from the more poignant speeches delivered this week in the House of Representatives by those members who recognized the folly of the recently-passed resolution opposing the President’s decision to send additional troops to Iraq in an effort to consolidate American victory in that country.

Jim Marshall (D-GA)

We are debating today a nonbinding resolution to disapprove the Iraqi-American military surge in Baghdad.  We do so knowing Congress cannot manage a war, let alone micromanage one.  We do so knowing the surge has begun, and we will continue despite our debate and vote.  We do so hoping our debate will not discourage those called upon to execute the surge, but we also do so knowing that it might….the anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines booing in the middle of our own team’s play because we don’t like the coach’s call.  I cannot join mid-play naysaying that might discourage even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad.

John McHugh (R-NY)

I have heard about how wherever they are, many Members tonight will go to the well when they ultimately vote and try to send the President a message, try to signify to the administration that this war has not been conducted in the appropriate way….

The reality is, if this message is heard at all at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going to speak in whispers. Whispers. But in other lands, in other continents, in other cities, far, far away, when this resolution comes before us, and if it is passed, it is going to crash like thunder. In places like Ramadi and Basra, from Baghdad and beyond, friend and foe alike are going to hear something far different than what we intend.

They are going to hear that through this vote we have abandoned the Iraqi people. They are going to hear that America has forsaken this struggle. They will hear that we disavow our military objective in Baghdad really before it has meaningfully begun, and most importantly in the shadows where our enemies lurk, in places like Tehran and Damascus, the message will fail where its authors intend, but it will succeed very, very mightily where they wish it would not.

Madam Speaker, for all of the good intent embodied in this proposal, it will not bring a single soldier home sooner. This vote…will not shorten this conflict by a single month, not by a week, not by a day. It will not change the course of a single battle. It will not even alter a pebble that lies on the battlefields in which those struggles will be fought.

It will, however, say to the insurgents, the Saddamists, the radical Islamic militants and their patrons that time is on their side. It will say that America has no stomach for this fight. And somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan, or in a hut on the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is going to smile.

His words of a failure of America will be that much closer to reality. As he has said: "The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule." They keep reiterating that "success in Baghdad will be success for the United States, failure in Iraq the failure of the U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist crusader tide against us."

Those are bad messages, Madam Speaker. But I would suggest respectfully to all of my colleagues for all the wrong messages this resolution will send to our enemies, nothing it contains will be more devastating than what it says to our troops, to our military, those brave men and women in uniform who answered the call to arms, issued not by some ephemeral entity, but by us, by this Congress.

And how do we say through the resolution we are considering here today, we support your needs, but we reject your mission? We allow for your deployment but we shun the premise of your departure? And what do we say to the wife or husband? How do we respond to the father or the mother or the loved one of the next warrior lost in battle who asks, why did you oppose through that resolution the job they were sent to pursue but did absolutely nothing from preventing them from going from the outset?

That is the tyranny, and I have to say it, Madam Speaker, that is the folly of the resolution before us for all its lack of practical result, for the fact that this resolution will do absolutely nothing. Never has this Congress in its history of war considered an action of such dramatic consequence.

Now, it is said during the Civil War that the great Southern general, Robert E. Lee, was really tired, and I think we can all relate to this, of the criticism, the second-guessing that was directed at his leadership through the major newspapers of his time.

And he observed, ‘Apparently all my best generals had become journalists.’ Today, tonight, I think it can be fairly said of some, apparently all of our best generals have become Congressmen. My colleagues, we are not generals. The Constitution of this great Nation does not provide for 535 Commanders in Chief, yet that is the reality lost in the proposal that we are considering this night in this week.

But I would suggest, instead of being diminished by that fact, instead of being lessened by what we are not, we need to be empowered by what we are. And I say to my colleagues tonight on both sides of the aisle, we indeed have a grave responsibility in this matter. But it does not lie in nonbinding resolutions that send wrong messages to our troops and absolutely wrong messages to our enemies. It rests in the authorities vested in us by the Constitution of this great land, the power to fund or not all matters of government, especially war.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

The Democratic leadership has drafted a resolution that undermines tactical military matters and seeks to override the decisions of our military commanders and the position articulated by General Petraeus. They do not want to discuss the grave consequences of withdrawal and surrender. They do not want to discuss the nature of the enemy, the Islamist militant extremists who seek to destroy us, who like vultures descend on us to prey on our weakness.

Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seek to focus on the abstract rather than on the reality. They believe that security will come from withdrawal and surrender. On the contrary, retreat guarantees that the Islamic militants will intensify their efforts against us….

Since this resolution provides no concrete alternative, some have expressed support for new diplomatic initiatives. However, I must ask my colleagues: With whom? Do they propose engaging with rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria? These rogue regimes are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Some of our colleagues may say that diplomatic engagement is the key to our success. But I ask them, how are we to engage our allies in the region to help foster security and reconciliation in Iraq if by our withdrawal and surrender we leave them to fend for themselves against enemies in the region who have been strengthened by our retreat? How is diplomacy to be effective in such an abstract context?  We cannot expect to achieve success if we are operating from a position of weakness….

Some may try to hide that fact by constantly repeating the empty words that they support the troops. But supporting our troops cannot be reconciled by refusing them the reinforcements that they need or with the retreat in the face of the enemy.

The hopelessness with which these measures spring is alien to our American spirit. That spirit has sustained us through many dark times, Mr. Speaker, throughout our history. This hopeful spirit springs directly from the hearts of the American people who have never given up faith in their belief, in their country, in their sons and daughters in uniform facing our enemies overseas.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of our revolution over two centuries ago when our country faced almost impossible odds and many counseled for retreat, Thomas Payne summoned forth the words that apply directly to the debate in this Chamber when he said, "These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands by it now deserves the love and the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us: That the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

John Shadegg (R-AZ)

This debate may benefit the American people. This resolution will undoubtedly harm America and harm our troops….

Let us begin with the text of the resolution….It is two sentences long. It essentially says: ‘stay the course.’ A resolution which says, ‘we oppose increasing troops, but we support our current troops’ is a resolution that says, ‘stay the course.’

It is not a resolution that says withdraw….It is not a resolution that says, ‘put in more troops.’ It is a resolution that says, ‘adding more troops is wrong, but we support those that are there.’

So why would we support staying the course?….My colleagues on the other side called for a change in strategy. This surge is the change in strategy….

Why do [congressional war-opponents] want a nonbinding resolution?  Because they do not want to accept responsibility….Those who oppose this war have a duty to take a stand, one side or the other.  If you oppose the war, then seek withdrawal.  If you do not, then do not undermine our troops.  Because make no mistake, this nonbinding resolution hurts our troops

Sam Johnson (R-TX)

The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think that their Congress doesn’t care about them, that they are going to cut the funding and abandon them and their mission. They want Congress to cave to the wishes of those who advocate a cut-and-run attitude. And we should not allow that to happen.   We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia.  

Osama bin Laden said that "in Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it."  And we didn’t blink an eye when the radicals bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia…or after the Kenya embassy bombings…or that same day at the Tanzania embassy…[or] the USS Cole bombing…and we all know how they tried to bring down the World Trade Towers and didn’t stop until they completed the job September 11.  

All of these tragedies of terrorism happened without a United States response.  We can’t waver in our fight for freedom. We cannot abandon the bedrock of democracy; they are the brave and selfless men and women of our United States Armed Forces. We will stand up with them. We must stand up with them. And I will stand up with them in Congress, because they stand up for our freedom every minute of every day.

David Reichart (R-WA)

There have been many bleak moments in America’s history, battles we have been engaged in where American victory was far from certain.

In 1942, hell bent on dominating the world with his ideology, Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich systematically marched through Europe, taking the most basic freedoms from the Jewish people and killing millions. The United States entered World War II reluctantly and we were not ready for the hurdles we faced.  Don’t forget, there were times when victory was far from certain. The outlook was grim. Many Americans and Europeans alive today can remember how bleak those times were as the war drug on and on and on. But we didn’t give up. We persevered, because we knew there was too much at stake.

Eighty years before World War II, in 1862, President Lincoln faced a war that most believed could not be won. He faced vocal and unrelenting criticism for his resolve to win the Civil War. When the war began, Lincoln called for 74,000 troops for 90 days; 74,000 troops for 90 days. And history has showed us that Lincoln greatly underestimated the resources needed, because, as we know, over 620,000 soldiers were killed during that war.  At a time in our history when it might have been politically expedient to win the Civil War without first achieving victory, President Lincoln pressed on, constantly seeking a new strategy, until he found one that worked because so much was at stake….

Today, the United States is engaged in another war, and just as before we face an enemy that wants to destroy our way of life. Just as before we face an enemy that thinks it is winning. Just as before our country is divided. Just as before we are making mistakes. Just as before we face a moment of truth about what to do next. And just as before the consequences of losing are devastating.

The enemy is clear about what their intentions are by what they say and what they do. Al Qaeda and the global movement that it has spawned have made it clear they want nuclear and biological weapons. It is clear they want to kill us, Americans. Osama bin Laden has called acquiring nuclear weapons a "religious duty." The fact is we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing Americans, and regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of that war….

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers is a U.S. Army infantryman serving in Ramadi, Iraq.   Sergeant Jeffers has a firsthand appreciation for what is at stake in Iraq and our presence there and what it means to the Iraqi people.

He writes, "We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: Safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them that opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor. We cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand and fight, whether in uniform or not. Right now the burden is all on the American soldier. Right now hope rides alone. But it can change. It must change, because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn’t."….

In November, the American people told us they wanted a new strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they wanted to win. Now we have a new strategy before us…. we must find a way to achieve victory, and simply saying "no" to a new plan without offering up an alternative will not work and sends a terrible message to our enemies and our soldiers.

Jim Saxton (R-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, it has been said here on the floor by more than one speaker, or suggested at least, that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror. I disagree. I could not disagree more with that statement….

You don’t have to believe me. But listen to what our enemies say. I have here the text of a letter that was written on July 9, 2005, from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the author, the second in command in al Qaeda, to al-Zarqawi, the person who at that time was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. "Our intended goal in this age is to establish a caliphate in the manner of the prophet."….

The first stage of this process is to expel the Americans from Iraq, according to al-Zawahiri.  The second stage, establish an Islamic authority or an emirate, to develop it and support it until it achieves a level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can spread power in Iraq. The third stage, he says, is to extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, he says, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity….

So I think if we are going to take on this effort to develop a caliphate, as one of the previous speakers said before it gets here, then maybe we ought to do what the commander of the national VFW suggests.

The commander of the national VFW put out a press release, and I have the text of it here. "The national commander of the Nation’s largest organization of combat veterans is very concerned that the ongoing debate in Congress about the planned troop buildup will be perceived by those in uniform as a sign that America’s lawmakers have given up on them and their mission in Iraq."

"My generation," he said, "learned the hard way that when military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it’s the common soldier and their families who pay the price."

"There is no question," he said, "that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war in Iraq," but "there is no playbook to fight an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy that wears no uniform and acts without conscience, yet our forces have adapted and are performing brilliantly," and I agree with him…."We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed."

Cathy McMorris-Rogers (R-WA)

On October 10, 2002, before many of us were here, including myself, 296 Members of this body, including 81 Democrats, passed a bipartisan bill authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The next day, 77 Members of the Senate approved a motion authorizing the same use of force.

What Congress realized then was the importance to the security of our own country of a free and stable Iraq and a peaceful and secure Middle East. Five years ago, Congress was at a crossroads and made a very difficult decision. Today, young girls in Iraq can now attend school, democratic elections have been held, a fledgling government is in place, and Saddam Hussein, a murderer of over 300,000 Iraqis, is no longer a threat to his own people or to our national security. In Iraq, we have acknowledged victories and successes.

In the past year, we all recognize the condition in Iraq has grown more grave. I know a lot has changed since I visited nearly a year ago. Al Qaeda operatives, Sunni death squads and Shia militias, propped up by the reckless dictatorship of Iran, have fueled violence and threatened the hopes and dreams of the Iraqi people.

So Congress is once again at a crossroads….There are three courses of action: leave things as they are; we know this is not sufficient. Draw down Armed Forces in Iraq; this will only lead to deadly indiscriminate violence, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Or respond by giving our commanders in Iraq the resources and the mission options needed for success.

All of us here support our men and women in uniform. We must continue to empower them to defeat the enemies of freedom in Iraq.