Iraq Debate: Floor Speech #1
February 13, 2007 6:00pm
Washington,
Feb 13, 2007 -
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 63, the resolution that calls on us to disapprove of the increase in troops in Iraq. I rise to oppose it, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully reflect on what we are doing.
This debate may benefit the American people. This resolution will undoubtedly harm America and harm our troops. Every American wants our troops home. Every American wants this war over. But it is not that easy. You cannot just wish this war would end and believe it will go away as a problem for America. Life is never that easy.
Let us begin with the text of the resolution. Make no mistake about it, it is very brief, and all of us should have read it. It is two sentences long. It essentially says: stay the course. A resolution which says, we oppose increasing troops, but we support our current troops is a resolution that says, stay the course.
It is not a resolution that says withdraw. That might be a morally defensible position, because perhaps we should withdraw, at least some believe. It is not a resolution that says, put in more troops. It is a resolution that says, adding more troops is wrong, but we support those that are there.
That is a resolution to stay the course. I would suggest no American believes we should stay the course. I would suggest that the RAND study and the Army's manual on counterinsurgency both suggest that staying the course is wrong. Indeed, it is a recipe for failure. Both RAND and our own counterinsurgency manual say, if anything, we should have between 400,000 and 450,000 troops there.
So why would we support staying the course? Now, we all know that many of us, and I included, wanted a change in strategy in Iraq. My colleagues on the other side called for a change in strategy. This surge is the change in strategy.
Indeed, and I am mystified, and I am glad some of my colleagues today have made the point, this is the change in strategy, at least one of them, recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I thought my colleagues on the other side supported that. It seems to me that there is also an important flaw in this debate.
My colleagues say that this is a nonbinding resolution. I would suggest to you that when you are at war, and when the United States Congress acts with regard to that war, it is not nonbinding. The world is watching. The world is watching every word that is said on this floor.
I believe we have a moral duty to finish what we began. Earlier on the floor, my colleagues have mentioned that many leaders in the region, in the Middle East, have begged us not to leave. They have begged us to stay at least long enough to stand up the Iraqi Government so that it can defend itself. They have implored us not to leave.
Let me give you their words. They have said, because they opposed our originally going in, the coalition came uninvited, it should not leave uninvited. They are making the point that we have a duty to finish this effort. They have talked about analogies. They pointed out that a heart surgeon who begins a heart surgery is not entitled, halfway through the surgery, to say, you know what, I am tired, I want to leave.
On the other side of the aisle many of my colleagues have said this is hard. Indeed, it is hard. But that is not a justification for leaving. The best analogy I heard was one that said, this is like stepping on a land mine, where you put your foot on it, but you know that if you lift your foot off it will blow up. We have put our foot on a land mine in Iraq. But if we lift our foot off before the Iraqi Government can defend itself, it will blow us up, and it will blow them up.
You cannot wish this war away. And so I would suggest this resolution is binding. The world is watching. Our allies, if we abandon Iraq, will never trust us again. But why do they want a nonbinding resolution? Because they do not want to accept responsibility.
The President does not have that choice. He has responsibility. Those who oppose this war have a duty to take a stand, one side or the other. If you oppose the war, then seek withdrawal. If you do not, then do not undermine our troops. Because make no mistake, this nonbinding resolution hurts our troops.
Let me just conclude with this point. In the midst of an ongoing war, it is impossible to support the troops and oppose the mission. Let me make that clear. The world is watching. Our enemies, al Qaeda, and the radical jihadists who hate us and want to kill us are watching. If we tell them we oppose the mission, we are encouraging them. They have guns, rockets, and missiles pointed at our troops. This resolution is a grave error. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
