Read Senator Clinton's trip report from Iraq and Afghanistan

Washington, DC - Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), and Congressman John M. McHugh (R-NY), held a press conference to discuss their Congressional Delegation (CODEL) visit to U.S. Forces serving in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Below is the text of Senator Clinton's remarks.

---

Thank you very much. As some of you know, I sit next to Senator Bayh on the Armed Services Committee and Congressman McHugh and I have the great honor of representing the 10th Mountain Division, which is based at Fort Drum in Upstate New York. It’s the most deployed division in the United States Army.

We went into Lahore for the purpose of meeting with President Musharraf, a meeting that lasted approximately 90 minutes. During that extensive, broad discussion, President Musharraf described some of his frustrations with his relationships with the Afghan government. We’ve heard about some of the difficulties on both sides of the border in preventing the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from going back and forth. And when we were in Afghanistan our military commanders described to us the challenges that they have faced with the increased penetration coming from the Pakistani side of the border.

Obviously, from President Musharraf’s perspective, he has some legitimate questions about how best to work with his Afghan counterparts that he shared with us. He raised his concerns about the state of relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I am concerned that when we most need troops on the ground in Afghanistan and a very tight relationship that is focused on good intelligence and military intervention to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we might have some difficulties between our two great allies.

I discussed with both President Karzai and President Musharraf whether a high level United States envoy on a continuing basis would be helpful and they both expressed a positive reaction. As some of you might remember, President Bush had both Presidents to dinner together to try to work out some of their concerns. And upon returning to the United States, I placed a call to the White House and spoke with the National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, to urge that the President consider appointing such a high-level Presidential envoy.

From Pakistan, we flew to Ramstein Air Force Base where we spent another very short night. And the next morning traveled to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, where seriously wounded service members from Iraq and Afghanistan are brought for treatment. We were very impressed with the high quality of services available to our men and women in uniform and I met New Yorkers there. Senator Bayh met soldiers and marines from Indiana. But I could certainly assure everyone who has a loved-one in these theaters of combat that they have the very best care available. In fact, I met one soldier who had suffered an injury in Fallujah and he is from New York City, so I called his mother to tell his mother that he was doing very well. And I could say that because he certainly was.

I also heard from some of the soldiers-- their concerns about the circumstances they find themselves in-- in Iraq. One told us, as he was lying in his bed with his injuries, that in encountering one of these shape charges, these new more advanced, more sophisticated command controlled IEDs, that the armored, fully equipped Humvee had saved his life and the life of his buddies. We talked later about how we still don’t have that vehicle, fully packed, available to everybody, something that we still have not accomplished. We met with our U.S. Commanders as well and toured the Contingency Aeromedical Staging Facility, which is the first stop for our brave wounded heroes when they come back for medical care before being taken home.

During these intense four days, we had the opportunity to talk with U.S. military serving in the theaters, with our U.S. civilian representatives and certainly with foreign leaders. My experiences underscored my concerns based on both what I saw and what I did not see. We saw American service men and women performing bravely and magnificently and we also saw a strategy that is not working. I personally did not see the kind of tangible evidence of actions that we should be expecting from the Iraqi government. And I believe our priorities are upside down. Afghanistan is a success story thus far, and yet we know it’s going to be under increasing pressure in the months ahead. We should be adding more American military forces and we should be requiring the NATO countries to fulfill their commitments to the forces that they had promised us.

In Iraq, the prescription is the opposite. Rather than an escalation of U.S. troops, which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq, we should be beginning a phased redeployment of U.S. troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own security and future.

The President is sending mixed signals. He has finally said that this is not an open-ended commitment in Iraq, but he is providing the Iraqis with an open-ended presence of American troops. We need to change course.

It would be a great irony if the Administration’s emphasis on escalating our presence in Iraq caused it to ignore the threat facing Afghanistan where those responsible for planning the September 11 attacks are still our enemies. The President’s team is pursuing a failed strategy in Iraq as it edges closer to collapse and Afghanistan needs more of our concerted effort and attention.

I support making several changes. Secretary [Senator] Bayh and I sent a letter today to Secretary of Defense Gates reflecting what we heard from our military commanders: they asked for additional troops. Now, if they are asking us, I assume they are asking others as well. They were asking for two additional infantry battalions in the south and that if, as is planned, there is a rotation out of a battalion in the east and that it will eventually be re-deployed to Iraq, that that battalion be replaced or not moved.

I plan to introduce legislation with regard to Iraq that includes three components. First, it will cap the number of troops in Iraq at the levels they existed on January 1st and will require the Administration to seek Congressional authorization for any additional troops. This type of troop limit has ample historical precedent including a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Lebanon in 1983 and more recently, Congress has limited the number of U.S. troops in Columbia. Second, as a means to increase our leverage with the Iraqi government, my legislation would also impose conditions for continued funding of the Iraqi security forces and the private contractors working for the Iraqis. It would require certification that the security forces were free of sectarian and militia influence and were assuming greater responsibility for Iraqi security.

I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions. Finally, my legislation will require the Administration to meet additional conditions for success in Iraq, including the assumption of greater responsibilities by the Iraqi government within six months.

The Administration has claimed that it intends to hold the Iraqi government to certain conditions and this legislation will ensure that both the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government meet their commitments. The conditions would require the Administration to certify that Iraq has disarmed the militias; ensure equitable sharing of oil revenues; make the constitutional changes to ensure rights for each ethnic community; reverse de-Baathification to allow teachers, professionals and others who joined the Baath party as a means to get a job to serve in the new Iraqi government. It would require the Administration to engage in a regional diplomatic initiative, including all of Iraq’s neighbors to address Iraq’s future and begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. If these conditions are not met, or not on the way to being met within six months, the Congressional authorization requirement would be triggered.

We all know that this is a very difficult dilemma that is confronting our country. There are many concerns on both sides of the aisle. Before we came in here, some of you heard my colleagues, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, who have been working with Senator Levin, Senator Reid and others to present a bipartisan resolution of disapproval of the President’s policy. I certainly will support that. But from what I have heard out of the Administration thus far, I think we will eventually have to move to tougher requirements on the Administration to get their attention.

This is a grave matter. America’s vital national security interests are involved and certainly the lives and the health of our young men and women in uniform is at stake and the Iraqi people’s future is as well. So, I hope that we can start having a discussion in the Congress among ourselves and with the Administration that will lead to a change of course and not adding more troops, pursuing a strategy that under present circumstances cannot be successful.

---

Click here for more of Senator Clinton's statements concerning the war in Iraq

###