With economy and restraint, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) spoke before the Senate and defended the Iraq mission. He explained why attempts to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq before the mission is completed are foolish. Casting his vote against the Levin Amendment and the Kerry-Feingold Amendment, both of which would have forced an artificial withdrawal of U.S. troops, Lieberman reminds us of the United States' rich bipartisan tradition in foreign policy which, in the Democratic Party, is most closely associated with Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Hubert Humphrey.
The text of Senator Lieberman's remarks can be read before the fold:
“Mr. President I rise to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senator from Michigan and others, and, the other amendment introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts and Wisconsin and others, because they both would direct, in different ways, the withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground. Mr. President, let me begin first with the harsh and familiar lesson history has taught us and that we are experiencing again in Iraq. War is hell. Precious lives are lost, blood is spilled, treasure is spent, countries, communities, and families are deeply pained and disrupted. But history also teaches us that there are times when wars must be waged and won to prevent even more awful hell, to overthrow an evil leader, or protect the noble causes of human freedom, opportunity, and peace.
“Mr. President at the outset of the war in Iraq coalition forces, led by our own brave and brilliant American men and women in uniform succeeded with remarkable speed to achieve a most worthy goal; overthrow an evil leader, Saddam Hussein, and, the opening of the opportunity for freedom, opportunity for the people of Iraq and broader peace in the region. After that, I would say, and I think all who support that war must admit, that mistakes were made on our side, some of them big, and the difficulty in Iraq increased. As others have said before me the war in Iraq, to overthrow Saddam Hussein, may have been a war of choice; it is now a war of necessity. We must win it. Why? Because the consequences of an American retreat and defeat there would be terrible for the safety and security of the American people here at home whom we have a constitutional responsibility to protect.
“I must say I also approach these two amendments with a sense of legislative history. They evoke debates that have occurred many times in the Senate. We had it just a decade ago on this floor about how long our Armed Forces should stay in Bosnia. Some wanted to set a deadline for withdrawal. A date. Others -- including myself – argued successfully that setting a date for automatic withdrawal was dangerous and wrong because it would discourage our allies and encourage our enemies. Our withdrawal should be consistent with the achievement of the goals we have set for the mission. I remember in that debate quoting the Biblical wisdom and warning, ‘If the sound of the trumpet is uncertain who will follow into battle?’ I suppose in our time we might amend that to say, ‘If the sound of the trumpet is uncertain who would stay in battle?’ I remember arguing that a nation, I thought, should only set an unconditional date for withdrawing troops if all hope of victory was already lost, which it was not then in Bosnia and is not now in Iraq; and unless the consequences of a too-early American withdrawal by calendar instead of conditions were acceptable to our country, which it was not then in Bosnia and is not now in Iraq.
“The Kerry-Feingold amendment directs that all American troops be withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year, regardless of the intervening events. The Levin Amendment is more complicated and I have spent some time studying it since it was made public on Monday. The Levin amendment directs that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq begin by the end of this year, 2006, without regard to the conditions on the ground there. And, so, for that reason, consistent with what I have just said about legislative history and my own previously stated strong position I cannot support either of these amendments. Mr. President, I personally hope, as I am sure all members of the Senate do, and I believe, that we will be able to withdraw a significant number of our men and women in uniform from Iraq by the end of this year and even more by next year. And I express that optimism based on the election and formation of the new Iraqi unity government, the increasing capacity of the Iraqi security forces to protect their own people, and the commitment of the new government to disarm the sectarian militias.
“General Abizaid and General Casey have said that it is their hope to begin withdrawing more troops by the end of 2006, and even more next year. But I want them to decide based on the realities on the ground, in Iraq, not on their hopes, or my hopes, or the shared hopes of the American people that we will soon be able to bring our Armed Forces home from Iraq, and I don’t want those distinguished American generals and the brave and steadfast American men and women serving under them to be directed by this Congress to exit before they conclude and recommend to us and the President that withdrawal is justified.
“My own opinion is that the sooner the Iraqis take control of their own defense and destiny the better it will be for them and for us. But, if we leave too soon it will be disastrous for them and for us.
“Sponsors of the Kerry-Feingold amendment have stated a very clear and direct purpose. I disagree with it. Sponsors of the Levin Amendment have argued on behalf of their amendment that they believe we must direct the beginning of a withdrawal of American troops without condition by December 31 of this year to make clear to the Iraqis that our commitment to them is not open ended. I believe the Iraqis know very well that our commitment is not open ended and is not a blank check.
“I will tell you that I personally said that to their leaders directly every time I have met them here or there. I know that many of my Senate Colleagues of both parties and leaders of the Administration have said the same openly and directly to the Iraqi leaders and Iraqi people, and the Iraqis have said over and over again that they know our commitment is not unconditional. Just yesterday in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post the National Security Advisor of Iraq made clear that his government wants the American military out of Iraq as much as we want our men and women to come home to America. He and the rest of the Iraqi leadership don’t need a Congressional directive to convince them of the desirability of American Forces leaving Iraq.
“What will be lost by it? Well I will answer that in a moment. I will say that in the interest of Iraq’s security and ours it should only happen, that is the withdrawal, as the Iraqis, step by step, are more and more ready to stand on their own. As the amendment introduced by Senator Levin states, the Iraqis are making good progress in exactly that direction. As the amendment itself reports more than two-thirds of the operational Iraqi Army combat battalions ‘are now either in the lead or operating independently.’ That’s significant progress. A national unity government has been formed. It took too long, but that also is an enormous achievement. But of course there is much work yet to be done, as the amendment states, to amend the Iraqi Constitution (Section 1209 (b) 10) to get more help from International donors (Section 1209-b-11), and as it states, and I quote from the Levin amendment, to ‘promptly and decisively disarm the militias and remove those members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the Iraq government is in doubt.’
“But, then the Amendment goes on to direct the beginning of the withdrawal of American forces by the end of this year, regardless of whether that work is done or those militias are disarmed. And that, it is where, I believe respectfully, it errs.
“In doing so, we will not just underline the message the Iraqi leadership already has received, accepted, and shares, that America’s military commitment to Iraq is not open ended and unconditional. I fear it would also send another message to our terrorist enemies and to the sectarian militias in Iraq that America is not prepared to see this fight through until the Iraqis themselves can take over. That will naturally encourage the terrorists to accelerate their cruel and inhuman attacks and it will signal the sectarian groups to hunker down and rearm their militias to strengthen themselves for the civil war that they fear will follow a premature American retreat, and that might well create conditions that none of us want, which is to say chaos, and civil war, in Iraq, and even regional war in the Middle East. And the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 being able to claim victory in Iraq, and going on emboldened to attack us again here at home and to bring their terrorism to more Arab countries in the Middle East. That is why I said the war in Iraq, whatever anyone thinks of how we got there, is now a war of necessity, a war we must help the people of Iraq win, or the security of we, the people of America, our children, and grandchildren will be gravely endangered.
“Mr. President section 2 on page 4 of the amendment the Senator from Michigan has introduced says that ‘the current open ended commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq is unsustainable.’ As I have said, our current commitment is not and should not be open ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis working hard to move themselves forward on the path to self-government and self-defense and in fact as the amendment states they are doing that. And this conditional commitment of ours to them is surely militarily sustainable and must be honored.
“The failure to do so, I believe, would have terrible consequences for our credibility in the world and our success in the long conflict ahead against radical Islamist terrorists who declared war against us and much of the rest of the world during the 1990s and carried out a brutal act of war against our people on September 11, 2001. We cannot and must not concede any battlefield to our enemy in this most unconventional but deadly serious war. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that our freedom and security and that of most of the rest of the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, depends now – as it has at critical moments in the past – on American persistence and fortitude in this painful, awful, essential worldwide war.
“For these reasons, Mr. President I will respectfully oppose the Levin amendment and the amendment introduced by Senators Kerry and Feingold.
“I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.”
I wonder if "The Lobby' and its sympathizers feel a little uncomfortable at Lieberman's conspicuous
clash with his party as highlighted so atavistically
(as long now as it's endured) here. I mean his motives
are and have been so transparent.
Posted by: Ken Hoop | June 24, 2006 at 02:29 PM