LINCOLN DAVIS SPEAKS OUT ON IRAQ WAR DEBATE AND TROOP SURGE February 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis delivered the following speech as the House of Representatives debates a bi-partisan, non-binding resolution stating that Congress and the American people support U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but opposes sending additional troops to Iraq, as proposed by President Bush.

Full remarks follow:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our military men and women. I strongly support our soldiers serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support of all our veterans, men and women who have served our country with great honor and distinction. I rise in support of our military, and because of my support for our military men and women, I also rise in support of this resolution.

I support this resolution because I see no evidence that an increase in troops will lead to anything other than more lost American lives. I don't think a troop surge will bring stability to Baghdad, I don't think a surge will enable the Iraqis to stand up and defend themselves, and I don't think a surge will end the religious and ethnic strife that has existed in the Middle East for centuries.

So here we are this week debating the President's proposal to send more troops into Baghdad. And as expected, the rhetoric from our friends on the Right has at times been shameful. To suggest that Democrats and Republicans embolden the enemy, that we are defeatists, that we don't support the troops, that we want to micromanage the war, and that we don't want to preserve freedom and liberty in our great country puzzles me. It seems to me our friends on the Right don't like discourse, they don't like questions, and they don't like meaningful discussion. They don't want us to question the President's strategy, instead they want us to follow him like sheep down a tragic street that dead ends in failure. Attempts to use fear and insults to quiet the Administration's critics are distasteful and hurt America.

Why do those who oppose this resolution want to discourage the type of actions that led to the founding of our nation-the very actions that allow the United States to continue evolving towards that never-ending goal of a More Perfect Union. Our country derives its strength from the diversity of views and ideas that comes from its people. If we disagree with the President's proposals it is our duty, particularly as Members of Congress, to say so. I maintain that doing so is the height of patriotism, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

As President Theodore Roosevelt said referring to the Presidency:

…that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.

I don't know about the majority of Republicans in Congress, but I agree with Teddy.

Our actions this week don't dishearten the troops, nor reflect a lack of support for our troops. Defense Secretary Gates, and General Pace both testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that a resolution disagreeing with the President's proposal wouldn't dishearten the troops. In my opinion the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may have a better idea of troop morale than Members of Congress.

I strongly disagree with the notion that our actions this week embolden the enemy. If our lack of support for the President's plan emboldens the enemy, then public opinion polls also embolden the enemy, since polls show the majority of Americans disagree with the Administrations policy in Iraq? And if this is the case, why don't we see condemnation of the American people for their views? Is it because politically those who oppose this resolution know they can't criticize the American public?

If the actions of the House and the American people are emboldening the enemy, then we need to consider everyone's comments. Iraqi's Prime Minister Al-Maliki recently said that the Bush Administration's description of the Iraqi government being on borrowed time "…gives a morale boost to the terrorists." The Prime Minister of Iraq is accusing the Administration of doing the same thing that many of us are being accused of doing.

Let's get real. I contend that the American people, that Democrats, that Republicans, and that President Bush loves America. The discussion we are having in Congress this week is an extension of our care for America because we all want what we think is best for our country. We want success, and we want security.

In order for us to have success and security we must force the Iraqi people to fight for their own country. In my opinion, the way to do this is not by adding more troops to the kill zone in Baghdad, but rather, take our troops out of the kill zone and force the Iraqis to step up their efforts. We should put our troops in a position to support the Iraqis when they need us. This way the pressure is on the Iraqis and not our fighting men and women.

The idea that we are going to cut and run from the Middle East and allow terrorists to control Iraq is false and has no basis in reality or history. We didn't leave Germany after World War II, we didn't leave Korea after that war, and we won't leave the Middle East after our soldiers' responsibilities in Iraq have ended. We didn't leave the Middle East after the Persian Gulf War and we won't leave the Middle East now. It is not in our best interest.

Instead, we will keep troops in military bases in the region in order to attack terrorist cells wherever they may pop up. We will keep troops in the region so we can take on al-Qaeda. We will keep troops in the region because we have a moral responsibility to do so. That's the reality. There is no plan to cut and run, but there is plan to make the Iraqi people take responsibility for their own country, their own fledgling democracy.

The French didn't win the Revolutionary War for us, and we can't win this peace for the Iraqis. They have to want it.