‘They want to tear up the Petraeus Plan and cut off funds for the very troops who are carrying it out’



Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday opposing the Feingold bill to cut off funding for our troops in the field:



“As we take up the issue of Iraq once again, the question that should be foremost in our minds is this: Has the situation improved since the Petraeus Plan was put in place?



“And if so, if the terrorists who have been murdering Coalition and Iraqi soldiers and civilians there for years are now seriously wounded and on the run, as we’re told they are, then the obvious follow-up question is this: How do we ensure that the progress not only continues but lasts?



“But our friends on the other side never seem to let the facts get in the way of their proposals for securing Iraq.



“When the President announced a new counterinsurgency strategy last year, many of them said it wouldn’t work — even while the plan’s most vocal critics voted to confirm the general who would carry it out.



“The Junior Senator from Illinois embodied this approach when he predicted, quote, ‘The President’s strategy will not work,’ and then cast a vote confirming Gen. Petraeus for the job.



“Then, when General Petraeus returned from Iraq to report that the strategy was bearing fruit, some of our friends on the other side covered their ears and questioned his integrity.



“The Junior Senator from New York embodied this view when she said the general’s report required, quote, ‘a willing suspension of disbelief,’ then voted against a resolution that condemned an ad accusing him of lies.



“And now, after months of positive reports on improved safety and even important political progress, some of our friends on the other side once again want to cut funding for the troops. In the words of the first Feingold bill that we’ll be voting on, they want to, quote, ‘promptly transition the mission.’



“They want to tear up the Petraeus Plan and cut off funds for the very troops who are carrying it out.



“The second Feingold bill is just as odd. It would require the Bush Administration, now in its final months, to set out a new global strategy for fighting terrorism — even as our military fights the terrorists neighborhood by neighborhood in Iraq and even as Congressional Democrats continue to block a bipartisan surveillance bill that we know would improve our ability to disrupt terrorist plots.



“The second Feingold bill would also require reducing the pace of deployments and an increase in overall military readiness. But this would mean not only full-funding for the Defense Department, but also directing an even greater share of the nation’s resources to defense, something the Junior Senator from Wisconsin has not been known to champion in the past.



“In other words, the second Feingold bill claims to advance an effective anti-terrorist program — even though the first one attempts to block a counterinsurgency plan that even early critics of the war are calling a success. And it calls for a new strategy against Al Qaeda even while Democrats in the House block one of the most effective tools we have in the fight against them.



“All of which leads me to wonder what possible deduction of reason has prompted our friends on the other side to believe that either of these bills is a good idea?



“We already know what will happen to the first bill. Last year, we overwhelmingly rejected it not just once, but four times. It never achieved more than 29 votes. And that was before the success of the Petraeus Plan. But given what has happened since then, the proposal to cut funds, to scrap the Petraeus Plan, makes even less sense today.



“Just consider what’s taken place in Iraq over the last year:



“Since the implementation of the Petraeus Plan, violence in Iraq has fallen dramatically.



“Over the past year, civilian deaths are one sixth of what they were in November 2006.



“High profile bombings are down by two thirds since June.



“The discovery and seizure of guns and other weapons caches has more than doubled nationally and tripled in Anbar.



“And the worst kind of violence is dramatically down: Ethno-sectarian conflict, the fighting has fallen from a peak of about 1,100 incidents in December of 2006 to about 100 such incidents this past November — that’s less than one year.



“Locals are energized about fighting back against terrorists, with between 70,000 and 100,000 ordinary citizens stepping forward to help local police root out terrorists.



“And the terrorists themselves are becoming demoralized, with even those who share their religious beliefs driving them into hiding.



“This kind of progress is changing minds. One harsh early critic of the war, Anthony Cordesman, recently visited Iraq, looked at the new data, and came to a different conclusion. Here’s what Anthony Cordesman says now:



No one can spend 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government – in security, governance, and development, there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.



“These are the words of a man whose judgment our friends on the other side were appealing to just last year in arguing for withdrawal. Last July, the Junior Senator from New Jersey, speaking on the Senate floor, cited the opinion of Mr. Cordesman before declaring, quote, ‘Mr. President, it is over. Your failed strategy, your ill-conceived war must come to an end before more damage is done.’



“All of this reminds me of something we saw last summer — after the New York Times ran an op-ed by two early critics of the war who had begun to change their views on the Petraeus Plan once those views became inconsistent with the facts on the ground.



“About a week after the piece appeared in print, the Senior Senator from Illinois concurred with its central point — after early and outspoken opposition to the Petraeus Plan. ‘More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq,’ he said. ‘I think that’s a fact.’



“Yet since those comments, violence in Iraq has gone down even more. And the kind of political progress that the authors of that New York Times piece were hoping for is finally taking place: A provincial powers law passed, with elections set to take place by October 1st.



“The Iraqi Parliament passed a partial amnesty law for prisoners, a sign of thawing relations between the Sunnis who make up most of the prison population and the majority Shias.



“And the Iraqi Parliament has also approved a national budget that allocated government revenue, most of it from oil, to the provinces.



“To most people, the lesson of the last year is obvious: Coalition forces are winning this fight, and they deserve our full support, and our thanks.



“The response for most of us has been a mix of pride and new confidence, especially now that some concrete political progress is being made.



“For others, however, the lesson to be drawn from success is the same as it was when we faced the strongest adversity: cut the funds, withdraw the troops, and leave Iraq to the terrorists.



“Fortunately, most of the Senate will reject this view when we defeat both Feingold bills — hopefully for the last time.”



###