Speeches


Defense, National Security, and War in Iraq

Print this page
Print this page


MCCAIN STATEMENTS ON IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL DEBATE

June 22, 2006

Washington D.C. – Today, Senator McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate regarding amendments offered by Senators Levin (D-MI) and Kerry (D-MA) to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill:

Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise once again to oppose the amendment offered by the Senators from Michigan and Rhode Island, and the amendment offered by the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Before I speak about the problems I believe to be inherent in these amendments, I’d like for a moment to discuss the nature of the debate upon which this body is engaged. The discussion over this war is perhaps the most consequential debate the Senate will engage in this year or perhaps in several years. The outcome of the war will impact the stability of the Middle East and the nature of U.S. foreign policy for a generation. It’s that important. So our debate on this floor should be a serious weighing of the arguments.


Sometimes, unfortunately, the debate seems to have deteriorated into slogans, but overall I think this debate has been very helpful. I want to reiterate the fact that we should respect the views of those who disagree with us. I respect and have known my colleagues that are sponsors of these amendments, and believe a good, healthy, strong debate is what this nation needs.


In that spirit, I’d like to discuss again my strong opposition to the two amendments calling for a withdrawal of American troops tied to arbitrary timetables, rather than conditions in the country. These amendments literally risk disaster for our intervention in Iraq. The Iraqi security forces, my friends, are clearly unable to maintain security on their own. All you have to do is look at every news story every morning or every evening. Even with the presence of coalition forces in Iraq today, the violence and instability remain at unacceptably high levels to abandon the fledgling Iraqi Army and police to the insurgents. The militias and the terrorists would risk chaos in Iraq, and that would mean disaster.


Madam President, there is an old line about those of us who ignored the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Afghanistan is the classic example of what could happen in Iraq. After years and years of incredible assistance to those who were seeking freedom from the then-Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan, the Russians were driven out. Then, incredibly, the United States of America totally disengaged from Iraq. I recommend to my colleagues the reading of a book called “Ghost Wars” by Steven Cole, which won a Pulitzer Prize. Of course, came the Taliban. The Taliban then obviously was not only a terribly oppressive, brutal, cruel regime, but it also became a hotbed of training for terror today. A failed state in Iraq would pose a clear, present, and enduring danger to the security of our country.


Now, the sponsors of these amendments seem to be based on the premise that if we begin withdrawing, the Iraqi government would somehow get serious and fight the insurgency on its own, without our help. That makes the assumption incredibly that the present government in Iraq and the military, who are out there fighting all the time, and the police, are somehow not serious. Of course they’re serious. They’re just not capable, and it’s going to take more time and more effort, and I’m sorry to say, more Americans’ sacrifice, before they are capable of assuming these responsibilities. Rather than inducing the government to crack down on the insurgency, beginning a U.S. withdrawal is more likely to induce average Iraqis to join a militia for protection rather than cast their lots with the government.


I also ask if we withdraw and the violence actually worsens, or if the terrorists enjoy save haven and make plans against America and our friends? Do we then face the options of tolerating the situation in perpetuity or reinvading the country? We have just one choice in Iraq. Understand, that is to see our mission there through to victory.


What does victory mean? It is the classic reduction and eventual elimination of any insurgency. An economy that works, a government that functions, and a military and police that are able to combat and eventually eliminate and destroy an insurgency. That’s the way every insurgency in history is put down. There’s no peace signing on board the USS Missouri. It is an insurgency that is to be surrounded, contained and eliminated. But it’s not to say that this victory will be quick and easy. It’s long and it’s hard and it’s tough, and many mistakes have been made, and all of us have been frustrated by those mistakes.


Many of us have been terribly frustrated by the inflated estimates and over optimistic statements that so frustrated us and the American people when the conditions don’t warrant it. And it’s still tough today. And we cannot fall prey to wishful thinking. We shall put the costs and difficulties and the difficult frustrations aside.


Madam President, I want to congratulate my colleagues for their participation in this debate. The American people expect nothing less of us. I hope that we are a better-informed nation and a better-informed body as we - -when we vote on this, and it will probably not be the last time that we address this issue. But I think it’s been done in a comprehensive fashion. I would close by reminding my colleagues, it was the United State that led the invasion of Iraq. The United States led the occupation and the United States, with our Iraqi partners, has the responsibility to see this through. It’ll take more time, more commitment, more support, and sadly more brave Americans will lose their lives in the service this great cause. And despite our cajoling, nagging, and pleading, few other countries around the world will share much of our burden. Iraq is for us to do, for us to win or lose, for us to suffer the consequences or share in the benefits. But in the end, there’s only one United States of America, and it is to us that history will look for courage and commitment.


I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.


# # #


 


June 21, 2006


Washington D.C. – Today, Senator McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate regarding an amendment offered by Senator Levin (D-MI) to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill:


Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the Senators from Michigan and Rhode Island, and the amendments offered by the Senator from Massachusetts. These amendments share the same problem: calling for a withdrawal of American troops tied to arbitrary timetables, rather than conditions in-country. The amendment we are debating now states the sense of Congress that the President should begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq this year, and that he should submit to Congress a plan with dates for this redeployment. Such a move would be, I believe, a significant step on the road to disaster.


There is an understandable desire, three years after our invasion, to seek a quick and easy end to our intervention in Iraq. We face real difficulties there, we have made serious mistakes, and the costs have been very high. But these would pale in comparison to what is likely to unfold should we follow the course advocated by this resolution.


The violence that we see on Iraqi streets today illustrates one fundamental fact: Iraqi forces are not yet capable of securing the country on their own. On the contrary, even with current troop levels, the level of violence in Iraq remains unacceptably high. To withdraw our forces would have one, all-too-predictable outcome – the violence currently constrained by our security operations around the country would rise commensurately. If the main enforcer of government authority – coalition troops – draw down prematurely, the only questions will be the degree to which the increased violence engulfs the country, and whether full scale civil war erupts.


Much has been said about the effect of an American withdrawal on the Iraqi government, and the sponsors of this amendment argue that a withdrawal would somehow force the government to take on responsibilities it currently evades. But consider, for a moment, the effect of a withdrawal timetable on individual Iraqis outside the government. An Iraq Shia living in Baghdad, or perhaps a Sunni living in Kirkuk, learns that the Congress has called on our President to begin withdrawing troops this year, and to present a timetable by which they will all return home. This knowledge changes the calculation made by individuals like these, decisions critical to the eventual security of Iraq. It makes joining the police forces or the Iraqi government look like an increasingly bad bet. Participation in a militia appears better by comparison, and by changing these calculations across the country, we have made the goal of stability in Iraq more difficult to achieve. By signaling that an end to the American intervention is near, we will alienate our friends, who fear an insurgent victory and tempt undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.


Not every member of this body agreed with the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But when our country went to war, we incurred a moral duty to not abandon the people of Iraq to terrorists and killers. If we withdraw prematurely, risking all-out civil war, we will have done precisely that. I can hardly imagine that any U.S. senator would want our nation to suffer that moral stain.


But the implications of premature withdrawal from Iraq are not moral alone; they directly involve our national security. Greater instability in Iraq would invite further Syrian and Iranian interference, bolstering the influence of two terror-sponsoring states firmly opposed to American policy. Iraq’s neighbors – from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Turkey – would feel their own security eroding, and might be induced to act. This uncertain swirl of events would have a damaging impact on our ability to promote positive change in the Middle East, to say the least.


Withdrawing before Iraqis can bring stability to the country on their own would turn that land into a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen once before a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We know that there are today in Iraq terrorists who are planning attacks against Americans. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice.


Whether or not members of this body believed that Iraq was part of the war on terror in 2003, it is simply incontrovertible that the war on terror is being fought there today. Al-Qaeda is present in Iraq. Jihadists continue to cross the borders. Suicide bombers target American troops, government personnel, and civilians. If we leave Iraq prematurely, the jihadists will interpret the withdrawal as the triumph of their brutal tactics against our power. And I do not believe they will stop with Iraq.


The letter released last year from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s lieutenant, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, draws out the implications. The Zawahiri letter is predicated on the assumption that the United States will leave Iraq, and that al Qaeda’s real game begins as soon as we abandon the country. In his missive, Zawahiri lays out a four stage plan – establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Zawahiri observes that the collapse of American power in Vietnam, “and how they ran and left their agents,” suggests that “we must be ready starting now.”


We can’t let them start, now or ever. We must stay in Iraq until the government there has fully functioning security forces that can keep the insurgents at bay, and ultimately defeat them. Some argue that it is our very presence in Iraq that has created the insurgency, and that if we end the occupation, we end the insurgency. But, in fact, by ending military operations, we are likely to empower the insurgency. The fighting is not simply against coalition forces; rather, the insurgents target the Iraqi government, opposing militias, and various sects and ethnicities. There is no reason to think that an American drawdown would discourage these fights.


Those who support a withdrawal might wish to examine the assumptions that lie behind that suggestion. What if we withdraw and the violence actually worsens, full scale civil war ensues, or terrorists enjoy safe haven to plan attacks against America and our friends? Do we then face the options only of tolerating this situation in perpetuity or re-invading the country?


A few observers have argued that the U.S. has an option of somehow pulling our troops from Iraq but still managing things from afar. But this is nonsense. The United States will have no leverage to manage things once we have left the country. The battle in Iraq, which is likely to remain counterinsurgency in character, is ill-suited to the extensive use of airpower, which would be the foremost instrument available to us from outside. We could no more prevail in Iraq from outside than we could win the war in Vietnam by continuing to bomb the North. As tempting as it is to seek a solution that would let us both draw down our troops and preserve our military options in Iraq, that solution does not exist. The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed.


Don’t take my word for it. Ask those whose security is at stake every day. The Iraqi government does not want us to set an arbitrary timeline for withdrawal. As the Iraqi Minister for National Security wrote in yesterday’s Washington Post, more important than some series of dates is the achievement of set objectives for restoring security. Similarly, our friends in the neighborhood fear a precipitous American withdrawal. Allies in Europe and Asia encourage us to see this war through to its end.


Because we cannot pull out and hope for the best, because we cannot withdraw and manage things from afar, because morality and our security compel it, we have to see this mission through to completion. Drawdowns must be based on conditions in-country, not an arbitrary deadline rooted in our domestic politics.


Our domestic politics do have an effect on the war in Iraq, and again I fear that this amendment would have a deleterious effect. Anyone reading it gets the sense that the Senate’s foremost objective is the drawdown of American troops. The sense they should get is that America’s first goal in Iraq is to win the war – and that all other policy decisions support, and are subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission. Like the sponsors of this legislation, I hope that we bring home American troops as soon as possible. By suggesting to the American people that withdrawal is at hand, we risk once again raising unrealistic expectations. That can only cost domestic support for America’s role in this conflict, a war we must win.


None of this is to say that success in Iraq will be quick or easy. On the contrary, this war is long, and it’s hard and it’s tough. We will see significant achievements, like the killing of Zarqawi and the completion of the Iraqi cabinet. But we will see steps backward as well, like the continuing violence in Baghdad and the insurgency in Ramadi. No one should have any illusions about the costs of this conflict, as it has been waged thus far or as it will be waged as we move ahead. But neither should anyone have illusions about the role of Iraq in the war on terror today. It has become a central battleground in our fight against those who wish us grave harm, and we cannot wish away this fundamental truth. We cannot fall prey to wishful thinking that we can put the costs and the difficulties and the frustrations aside by ignoring our challenges and responsibilities.


I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.


# # #


 






June 2006 Speeches