McConnell: Congress Should Not Announce a Surrender Date
March 27, 2007
‘Attempting to have it both ways — by slipping a withdrawal date into this bill, by making the support of our troops contingent on a dangerous and defeatist surrender date, was wrong a week and a half ago. It’s wrong now.’
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the Cochran Amendment and the need to remove the ‘surrender date’ from the funding bill. The following are his remarks as prepared.
“Less than two weeks ago a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators put aside its disagreements over the War in Iraq and agreed on one thing: that announcing a surrender date for our troops is not in the national interest. “It’s wrong by the troops, who’ve been risking their lives to bring stability and order to Baghdad and throughout Iraq.
“It’s wrong by the commanders in the field, who’ve been sent into battle with a mission to fulfill, and who know better than we do how to carry out that mission.
“And it’s wrong by the Iraqis themselves, who’ve risked their lives and fortunes on the strength of a promise that the United States of America would stand with them and see this struggle through to the end.
“We voted against setting a surrender date, despite intense political pressure, because common sense tells us that politicians in Washington don’t tell commanders on the battlefield when the fight is won.
“And they certainly don’t tell the enemy that they intend to run up the white flag 365 days from today. Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit, and re-plan until the day we leave.
“It’s a memo to our friends too, telling them we plan to walk away and leave them on their own, regardless of what we leave behind. We know as well as they do what they could expect: a Sunni minority exposed to the whims of the Shia majority, ethnic cleansing, and regional instability the consequences of which are painful to contemplate but easy to predict.
“Common sense told us something else a few months ago. It told us we had to change course, and that’s exactly what we’ve done. We realized the only way we’d win this fight would be to secure the city of Baghdad, the seat of the Iraqi government and home to a quarter of its population. And we implemented a strategy to do it.
“Some have said there’s no military, only a political, solution to ending the violence in Iraq. But we can’t pretend the Iraqis will forge a political solution unless they’re secure in their homes and on their streets. That’s the key to the Petraeus Strategy, and to our efforts in Iraq.
“We’ve been pursuing that new course for the last few months. A Democratic-controlled Senate sent a new commander into the field of battle to carry it out. And we’ve seen early signs of success — enough to believe this new approach was exactly the right thing to do.
“Now the Congress is being asked to fund it. We agree that this is also the right thing to do. We’re not about to pull the rug out from under our soldiers in the field just as they begin to carry out the mission we’ve sent them on. We’re going to give them everything they need. And we’re not going to slip a deadline now into their security package.
“The Constitution gives those who oppose this war a clear and concrete way of expressing their views: and that’s to vote against funding it. Attempting to have it both ways — by slipping a withdrawal date into this bill, by making the support of our troops contingent on a dangerous and defeatist surrender date, was wrong a week and a half ago. It’s wrong now.
“It’s also dangerous. President Bush has repeatedly said he’ll veto any bill that includes a surrender date. He said it again this morning. He said this spending bill in its current form assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even before American commanders are able to implement their plans. And he’ll veto it if it reaches his desk.
“I urge my colleagues not to take us down this path, not to delay the delivery of emergency funding to our troops by forcing a presidential veto. There is no need. Nothing has changed since a majority of us voted against the very same timeline the week before last.
“Stripping the withdrawal date will not prevent anyone in this chamber from expressing his or her views on Iraq. Its only effect will be to delay the delivery of much-needed funding and equipment to our soldiers in the field.
“I strongly urge my colleagues to strike this dangerous provision.”
###
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the Cochran Amendment and the need to remove the ‘surrender date’ from the funding bill. The following are his remarks as prepared.
“Less than two weeks ago a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators put aside its disagreements over the War in Iraq and agreed on one thing: that announcing a surrender date for our troops is not in the national interest. “It’s wrong by the troops, who’ve been risking their lives to bring stability and order to Baghdad and throughout Iraq.
“It’s wrong by the commanders in the field, who’ve been sent into battle with a mission to fulfill, and who know better than we do how to carry out that mission.
“And it’s wrong by the Iraqis themselves, who’ve risked their lives and fortunes on the strength of a promise that the United States of America would stand with them and see this struggle through to the end.
“We voted against setting a surrender date, despite intense political pressure, because common sense tells us that politicians in Washington don’t tell commanders on the battlefield when the fight is won.
“And they certainly don’t tell the enemy that they intend to run up the white flag 365 days from today. Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit, and re-plan until the day we leave.
“It’s a memo to our friends too, telling them we plan to walk away and leave them on their own, regardless of what we leave behind. We know as well as they do what they could expect: a Sunni minority exposed to the whims of the Shia majority, ethnic cleansing, and regional instability the consequences of which are painful to contemplate but easy to predict.
“Common sense told us something else a few months ago. It told us we had to change course, and that’s exactly what we’ve done. We realized the only way we’d win this fight would be to secure the city of Baghdad, the seat of the Iraqi government and home to a quarter of its population. And we implemented a strategy to do it.
“Some have said there’s no military, only a political, solution to ending the violence in Iraq. But we can’t pretend the Iraqis will forge a political solution unless they’re secure in their homes and on their streets. That’s the key to the Petraeus Strategy, and to our efforts in Iraq.
“We’ve been pursuing that new course for the last few months. A Democratic-controlled Senate sent a new commander into the field of battle to carry it out. And we’ve seen early signs of success — enough to believe this new approach was exactly the right thing to do.
“Now the Congress is being asked to fund it. We agree that this is also the right thing to do. We’re not about to pull the rug out from under our soldiers in the field just as they begin to carry out the mission we’ve sent them on. We’re going to give them everything they need. And we’re not going to slip a deadline now into their security package.
“The Constitution gives those who oppose this war a clear and concrete way of expressing their views: and that’s to vote against funding it. Attempting to have it both ways — by slipping a withdrawal date into this bill, by making the support of our troops contingent on a dangerous and defeatist surrender date, was wrong a week and a half ago. It’s wrong now.
“It’s also dangerous. President Bush has repeatedly said he’ll veto any bill that includes a surrender date. He said it again this morning. He said this spending bill in its current form assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even before American commanders are able to implement their plans. And he’ll veto it if it reaches his desk.
“I urge my colleagues not to take us down this path, not to delay the delivery of emergency funding to our troops by forcing a presidential veto. There is no need. Nothing has changed since a majority of us voted against the very same timeline the week before last.
“Stripping the withdrawal date will not prevent anyone in this chamber from expressing his or her views on Iraq. Its only effect will be to delay the delivery of much-needed funding and equipment to our soldiers in the field.
“I strongly urge my colleagues to strike this dangerous provision.”
###