SENATOR HUTCHISON SPEAKS ON THE SENATE FLOOR ABOUT THE MISSION IN IRAQ

I rise today because this is such an important issue. I don't think that any Member on this side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle is insincere in their views about this issue. However, I do think the disagreements are real, and it is so important the Senate do the right thing.

We have before us, of course, the Levin-Reed amendment that would set a deadline and cut and run from Iraq without regard to anything that is happening on the ground, including the Commander in Chief saying: For God's sake, don't do this.

So here we are debating this issue, but I think we have to also talk about the other amendments that are on the floor because we are now seeing a different variety. I think there is an attempt by many of our Members to send a message. None of these amendments would ever become law. I think everyone acknowledges that fact. So every amendment is meant to send a message.

What is the message? It appears that the basic message is to tell the President to change strategy or to tell the generals what to do or to micromanage the war. All different kinds of messages are being proposed. But the bottom line is we cannot tell the Commander in Chief, the President, nor the commander on the ground, General Petraeus, how to do the jobs we have asked them to do.

We heard from General Petraeus what the new strategy will be. I keep hearing people say we need a new strategy, we need a new plan, a new plan. We are in a new plan. Yet the Senate is saying, when the new plan is in its infancy, when the surge of 30,000 troops has been completed within the last 2 weeks, and yet we are pulling the rug out from under the new plan. It doesn't make sense.

I think all these amendments, all these message amendments are the wrong thing at the wrong time.

We cannot be the greatest country on Earth and say: Don't trust us if you are our ally and don't fear us if you are our enemy, and that is exactly what we would be doing if we leave Iraq because Congress sets a deadline regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

This is about a war on terror and protecting our freedom. This is not about Iraq in a bubble. It is about making sure we kill terrorism in the world before it ruins everyone's way of life and takes freedom from everyone.

If I believed we were just talking about Iraq and we could isolate Iraq,that would be a very different issue. This is about making sure Iraq does not become a stronghold for terrorists. This is to make sure al-Qaida cannot take over Iraq, terrorize the people as they have done in Afghanistan for years, have the oil revenue that would feed their terrorism and spread it throughout the world. We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq.

General Petraeus came to the Senate and put forth a different strategy. I asked him about it because I was very concerned about this strategy. I asked him why he thought this would work, why putting our troops outside the green zone and outside the protected areas embedded with Iraqis would make a difference. He talked about the need for the counterinsurgency measures to go to them and also to win over the neighborhoods.

It is said by those who are on the ground and have the expertise that it is working, that in the al-Qaida strongholds, the people have turned against al-Qaida and they are helping America, and the tribal chieftains in that area are helping Americans.

I met with a group of veterans today who have come back from Iraq. They were so strong and so firm. It was uplifting to talk with them, just as it is uplifting to talk with any of our Active-Duty military. But to talk to those who have had the boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan who know what is happening, one cannot fail to believe we have to give this a chance, even if the armchair generals back here in Washington have misgivings.

It is so important that despite the sincerity of so many of my colleagues in trying to put forward a different kind of a message, a message to the President--do a plan; we are not going to make you implement the plan, but we are going to make you do one--all the way up to the amendment that we are debating and on which we are going to have a vote tomorrow which is to cut and run.

That is the variety of message amendments that we have pending on this bill, and none of those is the right message. Look at the consequences. Look at the consequences if we leave without making sure Iraq is stable.

Today, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense announced there is going to be a rejuvenation of the talks that include all the people in the region. That is so important. This is something I have talked about for a long time. No longer can the neighbors to Iraq sit back and watch what is happening there and criticize America or anybody else and not take a hand in helping to solve the problems in this area. No longer can they sit back and grade America when it is they who have the very most at stake with an Iraq that might become a haven for terrorists. That is in no one's interest in that region, not even people who want the destruction of America, such as the President of Iran. It is not in his interest or Iran's interest to have a terror stronghold in the Middle East. It is certainly not in the interest of the moderate Arab nations that are trying to have stabilization in that region.

Here we are with a new strategy that is in the process of being implemented, and we have the Senate debating whether to set a deadline and leave, regardless of what has happened on the ground.

This does three bad things. No. 1, it dishonors those who have already died or been maimed. I met people today. I have met people at Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio who have been maimed. I have met with the loved ones of people who have been lost in this war already. If we cut and run, it is akin to saying there wasn't an underlying cause for which they died. That is not true. There is an underlying cause. It is a fight for freedom every bit as much as any war which we have ever fought because if we let a caliphate take over the Middle East, we are not going to live in freedom. That is the purpose the terrorists have, and we cannot let them succeed. We cannot dishonor those who have died for this cause.

No. 2, it puts every one of our troops who have boots on the ground today in Iraq and Afghanistan in harm's way that is a much greater harm than they face in the war itself. It puts a bull's-eye on them because the enemy knows they are leaving, so why not do worse things to our troops, why not get rid of them? That has happened before in retreats in wars.

That would be the worst thing we could do, is to say to the enemy: This is when we are leaving, this is when we are going to draw down, this is when the troops go away. I cannot imagine we would do such a thing.

And No. 3--and this is the policy that the Senate must stand for, and that is to stand for the integrity of America, the integrity of the greatest country on Earth--that we will be a formidable enemy and a reliable ally, that we will not flinch when times get tough. It is a legitimate argument about why we got here or when we should have had more troops or how the war has been run up to now. That is legitimate. We can talk about that, and it is a legitimate area to debate. But what is not legitimate is--because it is a very tough time--that we would say times are too tough; America must leave. What kind of honor would that bring on our country and this United States Senate? None. It would not bring honor on this country to cut and run because times are tough.

This is a fight for freedom. This is a fight to live in peace and harmony with people of different backgrounds and different faiths. This is taking a stand for freedom because America is the country that has the commitment and the capacity to fight for freedom in the world.

If we cut and run because times are tough, who would stand for freedom? Who would have the capability to stand for freedom?

It would be unthinkable to go against the general who is in charge in Iraq, the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, who has said also that ``if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely it would become a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan.'' We would be going against one of the wisest Secretaries of State we have ever had in our history, Henry Kissinger, who said:

Whatever our domestic timetables, the collapse of the American effort in Iraq would be a geopolitical calamity.

It would go against the wisdom of wars all the way back to the beginning.

During the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant, who did lead the Union forces to victory, said:

“Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his Nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history.”

Mr. President, this is not a new concept. This is a concept that has been tested time and time and time again, and retreating without honor is not an option for the greatest country on earth.

I hope the Senate will not look at the election next year or the political whims, even though I know they are strong, and I know sometimes it is tough to stand up and do what is right for the long term when the short term is very tough. But this is the Senate. We are the elected leaders of the States of our country. And they look to us for leadership. We cannot do less. Any of these amendments that are message amendments that will never become law, and we know it, are an undercutting of our troops when they have boots on the ground.

No matter how sincere the effort of all the authors of these amendments are, and I know they are sincere, I know they are looking for a way to send that right message, there is no message in these amendments that can be right for our country. It is very simple and very clear. We are the United States of America, and the world expects our country to lead, to be strong, to be unwavering, and to be as good as our military, which everyone acknowledges is the best in the world. I just hope the Senate can meet that test.

Back to Floor Speeches.