Congressman Abercrombie's House Floor Speech on the Iraq Resolution

Washington, DC -- Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, my overriding concern on every issue that comes before us is whether and how it supports our men and women in uniform.  Every decision about equipment procurement, training, endstrength or budget authorization must meet this test:  Does it support our troops?

The question before us today - increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500 combat troops and somewhere between three and 28-thousand support personnel - fails this test in every respect.

Both the immediate and long-term effects of the war in Iraq on our nation's military preparedness are evident and drastic.  Extended deployments, premature redeployments and sustained combat under unbelievably harsh conditions have taken a terrible toll on our forces and their equipment.  The results are an overstretched U.S. Army and Marine Corps with no fully mission-capable reserve forces, and an urgent need for billions of dollars to repair or replace worn and damaged helicopters, tanks, other armored vehicles, including up-armored Humvees, and other equipment.

Chairman Solomon Ortiz of the Readiness Subcommittee and I returned Monday from an inspection of two of the Army's busiest repair depots; Corpus Christi, Texas and Anniston, Alabama.  These depots repair, upgrade and modernize the full range of military helicopters and the Army's heavy and light tracked vehicles, including the M1 Main Battle Tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

What we saw were skilled, dedicated employees working feverishly to make sure that our men and women in uniform - particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan - have every piece of equipment they need to do their jobs and keep themselves safe from harm, from conversion equipment for M1 tanks to the latest up-armor kits for Humvees.  But, we saw maintenance and repair facilities that are just now beginning to cope with these demands because their critical roles in military supply-resupply were overlooked at the start.  They didn't get sufficient funding until three years into the war in Iraq, despite the alarms raised by Jack Murtha, David Obey, Ike Skelton and Solomon Ortiz.  What we saw were the results of the Administration's abject failure to mobilize the country's industrial base for this war of choice.  Only now are we ramping up America's manufacturing capacity to fully support our troops at home and overseas.

Smugly self-righteous in its belief that U.S. troops would be targeted with nothing more lethal than rose petals, this Administration has been complacent in leaving the burden of their war on the men and women of our armed forces; active, reserve and national guard.  The impact of this attitude hit home for me when I read recently about the death in Iraq of a 48-year old Army Sergeant with five children.

Newspaper columnist Dan Thomasson asked: "What in the world was a 48-year old man with five children doing in the military in Iraq?"  The answer is obvious: "He was either a member of the National Guard or Reserve."  Our Guard and Reserves are being used in a way never contemplated.  Their repeated and sustained deployments turn lives upside down, sometimes permanently, and have a profound impact on families, businesses and whole communities.

Why have they been so misused?  Because there isn't anyone else.  Because our active duty force is too small to sustain our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Because the Bush Administration refused to list to former Chief of Staff of the Army Eric Shinseki when he warned, "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division army."

We are mired in what President Bush calls "The central front in the War on Terror" and "The defining challenge of our age."  Yet, in the last weeks, he has been more comfortable discussing cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits to the most vulnerable among us.  To have acted to ensure that the burden of this war would be more broadly shared; that the industrial sector would be mobilized, and the military's equipment supply, maintenance and repair systems put on a wartime footing, would have been expensive and an admission of a reality the Bush Administration does not want to confront.  The hallmark of America's response in World War II was the mobilization of our entire society to join in the war effort.  If we had had today's leadership in 1941, the outcome of that war might have been much different.

The real and immediate concern is that forces now being deployed as part of the "surge" will not have the equipment they need when they get there.  They will have to "borrow" equipment from other units.

The long-term concern is that if other national security threats materialize, we are not fully prepared to respond effectively.

The House is considering an expression of support or opposition to another failure of leadership; a strictly political decision to send 21,500 more U.S. troops into the streets and back alleys of Baghdad, and to al Anbar Province.  This surge has little to no chance of making a strategic difference in the outcome of the war.  It is simply a tactical convulsion by an Administration that cannot and will not admit its authorship of the greatest strategic foreign policy folly in our nation's history.

What does history tell us?  Nearly twenty-three years ago, President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, outlined, in a speech entitled, "The Uses of Military Power," six tests that should be applied whenever the United States considers the use of combat forces abroad.  In summary:

1. Never commit forces unless the particular situation is vital to our national interest and that of our allies;
   
2. If we're unwilling to commit the force or resources necessary to win, we should not commit them at all;
   
3. We should have clearly defined political and military objectives;
   
4. The relationship between objectives and forces - size, composition and disposition - must be continually reassessed and adjusted;
   
5. We must have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress; and
   
6. The commitment of U.S. troops to combat should be the last resort.

Sixteen years later, in October 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush voicing his opposition to nation-building, put forth the conditions he thought necessary to commit U.S. troops to combat overseas":

• "It must be in the national interests.  It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops.
  
• The mission must be clear.  Soldiers must understand why are we going.
  
•  The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished.
  
•  And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined."

Candidate Bush was concerned that we were over-deployed around the world, and said, "I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy."

President Bush's policies have failed every one of Secretary Weinberger's tests, and his actions mock his own words, ostensibly endorsing those of the Secretary.

What are the consequences?  Make no mistake; we are now engaged in a war of choice; a catastrophe conceived in ideological zeal, cloaked in misinformation and administered with breathtaking incompetence.  It is an outrage that we have not had a single policy in Iraq worthy of our men and women in uniform.  This "surge" is yet another misstep in this tragic journey to disaster.  We need to end it - and end it now.

-30-