Speeches


Defense, National Security, and War in Iraq

Print this page
Print this page


SENATOR MCCAIN STATEMENT ABOUT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ

March 14, 2007

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today made the following statement on the Senate floor regarding the Iraq resolution:

 

“Mr. President, no matter we will debate this year is as important as the future of American involvement in Iraq.  The decisions we make will shape the future of the Middle East, the conduct of American foreign relations, the security of our nation, and the lives of our countrymen. 

 

“Just as each of us should use our best judgment to find answers to the problems we face in this war, so too must we heed the moral implications of our judgments, regardless of the political ramifications.  Matters of war and peace impose responsibilities on us that mock our other less solemn obligations, in which partisan or personal considerations may be expected to have a less injurious effect.

 

“I must admit to some bewilderment at the way in which the proponents of the resolution authored by the Majority Leader have chosen to proceed.  They do not support the President’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq as one element of a broader effort to stabilize that violence-torn country; they believe the Senate should be on record as opposing the plan to augment our forces.  Fair enough; let us have this debate, and if any Senator believes our nation is embarking on a misguided approach, he or she has not just the right but the obligation to oppose it vigorously.  Such is our responsibility as elected officials, in a Congress that possesses the constitutional power of the purse.

 

“And yet we debate today not legislation that would de-fund the war, but rather a new resolution authorizing, again, the use of military force in Iraq.  Having authorized the President to use military force in Iraq in 2002, the sponsors of this new resolution would attempt to legislate our troops’ mission in midstream.  They would not declare war, nor end it, as the Constitution provides, but micromanage it. 

 

“I ask my colleagues:  is such micromanagement of warfare the responsibility of this body?  The Supreme Court has said in the past that the conduct of campaigns is the province of our nation’s executive branch, not a task for lawmakers.  And yet S. J. Res 9, by choosing particular missions for U.S. forces in Iraq and forbidding others, would attempt to exercise a power properly reserved for the commander in chief of our armed forces. 

 

“When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission.  And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail.  When we voted to send them into battle we asked them to use every ounce of their courage and fortitude on behalf of us. 

 

“And now it is only right that we, the elected officials entrusted with overseeing the future of our soldiers’ involvement, exercise a lesser magnitude of courage, our political courage on behalf of them and the country they serve.  If any Senator believes that our troops’ sacrifice is truly in vain, the dictates of conscience demand that he or she act to prevent it.  Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree deeply with their position, and dread its consequences, have the courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it.

 

“If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission, and coupled with critical political and economic benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi government, provides a better – and perhaps the last – chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to this new strategy.  It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which they rest. 

 

“Mr. President, allow me to turn to the substance of this resolution.  After stating, twice, that the conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution, it would legislate the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq.  Let me ask the sponsors of this resolution precisely what assumption is behind this construction.  Is it that all hope is lost in Iraq, that we have lost the war and thus must bring our troops home?  Or is it the proponents’ contention that by withdrawing troops we will actually maximize the chances of success? 

 

“Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce a political solution rather than make it less possible?  Is success in Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?

 

“General David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not.  Of course the dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution.  That is undeniably true.  But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply conjured.  It is impossible for meaningful political and economic activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as Baghdad is today.  Security is the precondition for political and economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political settlement all of us agree is necessary.

 

“Until the government and its coalition allies can protect the population, the Iraqi people will increasingly turn to extra-governmental forces, especially Sunni and Shiite militias, for protection.  Only when the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force will its authority have meaning, and only when its authority has meaning can political activity have the results we seek.

 

“The presence of additional forces could allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own – impose its rule throughout the country. Toward that end we have begun executing a traditional counterinsurgency strategy aimed at protecting the population and controlling the violence.  In bringing greater security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces can give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation.

 

“This does not imply that reconciliation is the inevitable outcome of a troop surge.  On the contrary, there is no guarantee of success.  What the situation demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us the best possible chance for success.  This, I believe, is what the new plan represents.  It gives America and the Iraqis a better chance to avoid the catastrophic consequences of failure. 

 

“Catastrophic failure is, on the other hand, what many of us fear is on offer should the proponents of this resolution prevail.  They would shift the focus of our commanders and troops from establishing security in Iraq to three limited objectives:  protecting coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.

 

“Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target “terrorists,” but not those who foment sectarian violence.  Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence?  When the Madhi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia?  What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED in the road?  The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq.  The two are deeply intertwined, and that is one reason why progress has been so difficult.  To say that targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality.    

 

“The three limited missions contained in this resolution would prohibit intervention to stop genocide, should that terrible consequence unfold as a result of our withdrawal.  Can we really expect American soldiers and Marines to turn their backs while ethnic cleansing on a Rwanda-like level of violence occurs in Baghdad?  I don’t think it is realistic or right, Mr. President, to expect Americans to observe another Srebrenica on a truly epic scale occur, and do nothing to stop it.  And I don’t think it is realistic to think that we can somehow ameliorate its catastrophic consequences for the rest of Iraq and the region by continuing to chase insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists on search and destroy missions or stretching our forces along its borders to prevent other nations from intervening more forcefully to support whichever side they find their interests aligned with. 

 

“I’ve heard some argue that Iraq is already a catastrophe, and we need to get our soldiers out of the way of its consequences.  To my colleagues who believe this, I say, you have no idea how much worse things could get, indeed, are likely to get, if we simply accede to the sectarian violence in Baghdad.  It is a city of six million people, two million of whom are Sunni.  Without U.S. forces there to attempt to prevent it from descending further into the sectarian warfare, and all of its citizens turning to the militias and insurgents to protect them, the bloodshed and destruction we have witnessed to date will be but a suggestion of the humanitarian calamity to come. 

 

“The President, under this legislation, would have to begin redeployments within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008.  Why were these dates chosen?  Why these and not others?  Why dates for withdrawal, rather than conditions?  Such mandates are a retreat, not a strategy, and we should be honest about the character of such a proposal.

 

Iraq is not Vietnam, Mr. President.  We were able to walk away from Vietnam.  If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people.  If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back – possibly in the context of a wider war in the world’s most volatile region. 

 

“All of us want to bring our troops home, and to do so as soon as possible.  None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until recently is sustainable.  None of us can say we have proposed a course of action that will achieve certain success.  The hour is late, Mr. President.  The situation is, indeed, dire. 

“But all of us have a responsibility to withstand despair to make sound, informed judgments about how to proceed from here, and to defer our own interests and political considerations to considerations of what is in the best interests of our country.   Presidents don’t lose wars.  Political parties don’t lose wars.  Nations lose wars, Mr. President, and nations suffer the consequences.  Those consequences are far graver than a lost election. 

 

“When a nation goes to war, a million tragedies ensue.  None are more painful than the loss and injury of a country’s finest patriots.  It is terrible thing, war, but not the worst thing.  The men and women we have sent into harm’s way understand that.  They, not us, have endured the heartache and deprivations of war so that the worst thing would not befall us, so that America might be secure in her freedom.  The war in which they fight has divided Congress and the American people.  But it has divided no American in their admiration for them.  We all honor them.  We are all – those who supported the decision that placed them in harm’s way and those who opposed it – we are all humbled by their example, and chastened in our prideful conviction that we, too, in our own way, have offered our country some good service.  It may be true or it may not, but no matter how measurable our own contributions to this blessed and beautiful country, they are a poor imitation of theirs.  I know we all know how little is asked of us compared to their service, and the solemn and terrible sacrifice made by those who will never return to the country they loved so well. 

 

“In the last few weeks some of those brave men and women have learned their tour in Iraq will last longer than they were initially told.  Others have learned that they will soon return to combat sooner than they had been led to expect.  It is a sad and hard thing to ask so much more of Americans who have already given more than their fair share to the defense of our country.  Few of them and their families will have greeted the news without feeling greatly disappointed and worried, and without offering a few well deserved complaints in the direction of those of us who have imposed on them this additional hardship.  Then they will shoulder a rifle and risk everything – everything – to accomplish their mission, to protect another people’s freedom and our own country from harm.

 

“May God bless and protect them.  And may we, their elected representatives, have the political courage to stand by our convictions, and offer something more than doubts, criticism, or no confidence votes to this debate.  They deserve more than that. 

 

“I know that every member of this body is united in our regard and concern for them.  I know every member of this body is struggling to understand the best way forward to avoid complete failure in Iraq.  But whether this resolution carries or not, these soldiers and Marines are going to deploy to Baghdad.  If we are certain that despite their courage and devotion they cannot succeed, then take the action the Constitution affords us to prevent their needless sacrifice.  If we are not prepared to take that action, then let us do everything in our power to help them succeed.  Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us.  There are no others, Mr. President.  I wish there were.  But here we are, confronting a political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the country’s most vital security interests and the lives of the best Americans among us at stake.  May God grant us the wisdom and humility to make this difficult judgment in our country’s best interests only, and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences which will ensue.   

“I yield the floor.” 






March 2007 Speeches