Mr. President, I stand in front of a desk in which a former Idaho senator by the name of William E. Borah stood. He was renowned for a variety of things after the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. He was an outspoken isolationist and opposed Woodrow Wilson and led the battle to destroy the League of Nations. He was successful. We never joined the League of Nations. America came home from World War I, pulled up its bridges and it remained a relatively isolated island in a world until World War II.
We know times have changed. We also know that great debates about foreign policy have occurred on the floor of the Senate down through the centuries. We have had a very valuable debate over the last 24 hours in large part about foreign policy but in a surprising way about military tactics.
There is one role that we play here in the United States Senate and that role is a political role, it is not a military role. Not 535 generals. There are a few of us--I'm not one of those--who've had extensive military experience and who might have the kind of strategic knowledge necessary to make decisions that are general--that our generals could and are making on the field at this moment. But I am always suprised when we decide to become tacticians, when we decide to use the floor of the United States Senate as a command center, when we meet in secret rooms around the Capitol to decide how troop movements out to happen and what the rules of engagement ought to be. No, we shouldn't be playing that role. That's why when we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously in the Senate, we said to him very clearly, you go to Iraq in relation to a surge that is being implemented and you come back to us and give us your honest and fair assesement in September.
So why then the last 24 hours have we been deciding or trying to prejudge Petraeus, to jump in front of him acting like the general that he is and the general who is on the ground in Baghdad as we speak? It is raw politics. That's what it is all about. And that's what you have seen played out here in the last 24 hours. Now, I would be the first to tell you that good politics sometimes doesn't produce good policy, especially if you're reacting at the moment--if you are reacting at a snapshot of a polling data where the American people are reacting because they have been fed information instantly about something that may or may not be true in the broader perspective.
But that's what we're doing here, and that's what we do best. But let me suggest that sometimes good policy--so why then the last 24 hours have we been deciding or trying to prejudge Petraeus, to jump in front of him acting like the general that he is and the general who is on the ground in Baghdad as we speak? It is raw politics. That's what it is all about. And that's what you have seen played out here in the last 24 hours. Now, I would be the first to tell you that good politics sometimes doesn't produce good policy, especially if you're reacting at the moment--if you're reacting at a snapshot of a polling data where the American people are reacting because they have been fed information instantly about something that may or may not be true in the broader perspective.
But that is what we're doing here, and that is what we do best. But let me suggest that sometimes good policy--good politics does not in the long term produce good policy. It is with that point in mind that I hope that the Levin-Reed Amendment goes down that it doesn't gain the necessary votes to proceed to a final vote.
We ought to be focused on the content of the National Defense Authorization Act and all that it means to our country and to our veterans because of a variety of key amendments that have been placed in this very important document. And I think that America, if they've been watching C-SPAN for the last 24 hours have not heard one word or very few words about the embodiment of this bill and its value and what it will do to the long-term stability of our military and the care of our veterans.
I was once chair. I am now Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and Senator Akaka and I have put a very large and valuable amendment in there that deals with traumatic brain injury and the extension of eligibility of the eligibility of care as we work to create a seamless environment between men and women coming out of our armed services and becoming veterans and becoming eligible for the care that our Veterans Administration can provide for them. Mental health evaluations, trying to get ahead of traumatic brain injury that may not manifest itself for months and years after men and women come out of the armed services. Dental care for our returning service members and homeless programs and all other kinds of things are embodied in this very important legislation.
So, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have had your 24 hours of politics. Now I hope we can have a vote, move on, and get to the final passage of the Defense Authorization Act that is so important to our country in the short term and in the long term, and I would hope that this Senate shows some consistency in what we do, and that consistency would be to wait until September in what I think will be a fair and honest and factual evaluation by General Petraeus as to the situation, the current environment and the future in Iraq. And at that time, as a United States Senator representing the State of Idaho, I am prepared to make decisions that are different than those today as it relates to our involvement in Iraq, if the facts so demonstrate it.
General Petraeus has a lot of credibility, not only with this Congress but with the American people and the polls are showing that. While Americans are very frustrated over the war in Iraq, they don't want to cut and run at this moment, and that's what Levin-Reed is all about, cutting and running.
And what happens if we do that? What happens if we don't find a strategic way out? It is important that we put ourselves in perspective of the world that involves Iraq and its surrounding neighbors. You have heard a lot of rhetoric about the instability, about the role of Iran and certainly what's going on in the north here with the Kurdish population and what Turkey is doing, amassing troops along this border. You've heard about what's going on in Lebanon and certainly the traumatic reality that is happening there. Premature withdrawal from Iraq would risk, I believe, plunging this--that Nation into chaos which could spill over its borders into the gulf region that you see here.
Iran, which is a threat to vital U.S. interests and continues to provide lethal support to Shia militants who target and kill U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis, would exploit our premature departure to dominate and control much of -Iraq. Here they are, a very large nation with very powerful forces and resources, just waiting for the opportunity to fulfill their historic Persian vision of the region.
Tehran's terrorist proxy to Hezbollah continues to foment in instability in Lebanon. They've already leapfrogged Iraq. They're over here, creating tremendous influence in that region. Hamas, another Iran proxy, continues to kill and maim innocent Israelis and Palestinians and is attempting to establish a jihadist state in the Gaza.
Here we are--another leapfrog over Iraq. Iraq is simply in the way of Iran. It's quite plain. It's quite simple. And it is very visual when you look at the map. And without some stability in Iran--in Iraq, the ability of it to control itself and its borders, the ability to govern itself, the reality of what could happen in the region is in fact dramatic consequences, a collapse, a major war within the region, not only a civil war within Iraq but the ability of Iran and Syria to exploit the situation that would occur there. Tehran would extend its destabilizing activities to another very important part of the region--Kuwait--and the oil-rich regions of eastern Saudi Arabia along this border here, one of the larger producing oilfields in the region and the kingdom could well fall. And those are the realities we face at this moment that I think few want to talk about. Let's talk about another consequence.
I will put the balance of my statement in the record. But the other consequence, Mr. President, that we've not talked about is what happens when 54 percent of the world's oil supply goes to risk with a collapse of the region. And this is a reality check that we only talk about in hushed terms, because we don't like to talk about our dependency on a part of the world that is so unstable. With those thoughts, I yield the floor.
What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.
The facts are, Mr. President, that the war we are fighting in Iraq has serious and real national security implications and we cannot prejudge our best and brightest military commanders by playing politics with their duties and best judgement. We should not preempt General Petraeus's progress report coming in September and I hope that the Senate will go on record today as saying we are not a body of generals, we do not know best how to conduct a war and determine how many troops it will take to secure Iraq. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting down Levin-Reed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.