WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today condemned the “Bridge Fund” in remarks submitted for the Congressional Record.

 

The statement reads:

 

Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 4156, a bill that would link vital funding for our troops to a mandated timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.  Not only is this bill irresponsive to the facts on the ground, it is irresponsible.  Instead, we should approve S. 2340 and provide our military with the resources they require, free of conditions that would undermine their ability to conduct operations and build on their recent successes.

 

Today the Senate considers yet another bill mandating the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground or the views of our commanders in the field.  If this latest attempt sounds familiar, it should – the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to limit the ability of the President and his commanders to prosecute this war.  And, just like the 40 votes that preceded this one, the result of this vote will undoubtedly be the same.  The proponents of this legislation are well aware of this fact, and the fact that the President has pledged to veto legislation calling for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.  Rather than move beyond these differences and ensure that our troops in the field receive the vital funding they need, however, we will go through this exercise yet again.  

 

This legislation would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces within 30 days of enactment, leaving a smaller force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions, with the goal of ending our involvement, irrespective of the situation in Iraq, by December 15 of next year.  Given that similar provisions have failed 40 times already, it is inconceivable that they would succeed now, when there is unambiguous progress in Iraq.  The choice today is simple:  do we build upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to complete their mission, or do we ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue?  The answer, Mr. President, should be simple.

 

As we proceed with consideration of this bill, it is important to spend a few moments reviewing the current state of affairs in Iraq.  We see today that, after nearly four years of mismanaged war, the situation on the ground in Iraq shows tangible signs of progress.  The forces needed to implement General Petraeus’ counter-insurgency plan have been in place for over six months and our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, continues to make significant gains in a number of areas. 

 

The second in command in Iraq, Lt. General Ray Odierno, stated earlier this month that due to the recently implemented counterinsurgency operations, “we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate portions of the population and hamper the enemy’s ability to conduct coordinated attacks.”  General Odierno went on to add that “we have experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security over the last four months, and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.”  According to a recent report issued by the Department of Defense, weekly IED attacks have decreased by 60% across Iraq since the beginning of Operation Phantom Thunder in mid-June.

 

The Associated Press reports that Iraqi civilian deaths have dropped sharply as a result of the “surge,” from 1,791 in August to 750 in October.  Mortar attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest on record since February of 2006, as were the number of “indirect fire” attacks on U.S. and coalition forces.  The surge’s success in establishing greater security has spurred a great increase in cooperation from Iraqi citizens, and Major General Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of Baghdad, said he believes the decrease in rocket and mortar attacks will continue to hold because of a “groundswell” of support from regular Iraqis. “If we didn’t have so many people coming forward to help, I’d think [the decrease in attacks] is a flash in the pan.  But that’s just not the case,” General Lynch said.

 

We are all aware of the monumental strides our military has made in restoring order and reducing violence in Anbar Province.  A province once declared “lost” to al Qaeda has begun a return to normalcy for many of its inhabitants.  Locals, sickened by the brutality of insurgents and terrorists, have rejected violent extremism and have cooperated with U.S. and Iraqi forces to take the fight to the enemy.  This partnership model combined with U.S. troops “living forward” is being replicated and producing real results all across the country. 

 

In Ghazaliya, for example, once known as a strategic gateway to Baghdad for insurgents and a place where coalition convoys were regularly ambushed, the creation of Joint Security Stations has led to a significant reduction in sectarian violence and IED attacks.  Amariyah, a neighborhood in western Baghdad that just six months ago was a central operational location for al-Qaeda in Iraq and plagued by high levels of bombings and shootings, is beginning to see a drastic reduction in violence and many residents are beginning to experience some semblance of normal life. 

 

None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to an acceptable level, or that victory lies just around the corner.  On the contrary, the road ahead remains, as it always has been, long and hard.  Violence is still at unacceptable levels in some parts of the country, reconstruction of important infrastructure lags, and the Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must.  No one can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects, but, by the same token, no one should dismiss the positive developments that have resulted from this new strategy in Iraq.   

 

Nor can we dismiss the enormous costs of American failure in Iraq.  Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the bill we are currently considering become law, it would mark the end of this long effort.  They are wrong.  Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement.  If we leave, we will be back – in Iraq and elsewhere – in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure.  Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve.  We must remain steadfast in our mission, for we do not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, Mr. President, we fight for ours as well. 

 

That means approving the support that our fighting men and women need.  The funding contained in this supplemental is not, as some have characterized it, the “President’s money.”  This money is for the troops.  This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require to fulfill their mission, funding to protect our men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks, funding to enable them to bring this war to a successful end.  Holding our military’s funding hostage to a repetitive and futile attempt to score political points is unconscionable.

 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England recently wrote to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee about the effects of this legislation.  “Without this critical funding,” he wrote, “the Department will have no choice but to deplete key appropriations accounts by early next year.  In particular, the Army’s Operation and Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-late January.  This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base operations, and training activities.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said just yesterday that, should the money contained in this bill be withheld, he will have to “lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military bases.”  Army Secretary Pete Green went on to add that without these funds, the negative effects “will fall most heavily on…home based troops and their families.”

 

Mr. President, I’ve seen a lot during my time in the United States Senate, but few events sink to the level of what we are witnessing today.  I understand the frustration that many feel after nearly four years of mismanaged war.  I share their frustration and sadness.  But we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance.  Not to short-term political gain, but to the security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, and to the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  That responsibility is our dearest privilege and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage or office.  Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our servicemen and women have made by engaging in a game of political brinksmanship.  There is far too much at stake.

 

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.