|
|
U.S.
Senator Member: Agriculture, Energy, Veterans' Affairs, Ethics and Aging Committees |
|
|
|
||
|
For Immediate
Release June 21, 2006 |
CONTACT: Cody Wertz – Comm. Director 303-455-7600 Andrew Nannis – Press Secretary 202-224-5852 |
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar today gave the following speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate in support of legislation that calls for progress in making a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, and for Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own security and future. Senator Salazar’s speech, as delivered, follows: Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Levin-Reed amendment on our nation's Iraq policy. The United States of America has already invested mightily in helping the Iraqi people. It is now time for the United States to make a clear and specific statement that the Iraqi people must assume the responsibility for finding Iraqi solutions to the challenges that Iraq faces. Indeed, that is exactly what the Iraqi government itself has recently said. Just a few days ago, the new Iraq national security advisor, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, paints a drop down in U.S. troop numbers by the end of this year and continuing on into 2007. He also said -- and I quote the national security advisor, he said, "The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call ‘the coalition occupation.’" And finally, he made the following statement -- and I quote, "The removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people." The security advisor continued and essentially said that there would be a gradual transition from the American troop presence there in Iraq. So our amendment essentially builds on essentially what the Iraqi government is telling us that they want. America has invested life, blood and treasure in Iraq over the past 3 1/2 years of enormous proportions. 2,506 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed. Over 10,000 servicemen and women have been wound in the conflict, and over $320 billion of taxpayer money have been appropriated for the war. Mr. President, we all recognize that U.S. forces cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Indeed yesterday the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to retain language indicating that the U.S. will not construct permanent bases in Iraq precisely because they wanted to send a signal that Americans do not plan to stay in Iraq forever. Last year this United States Senate joined together in calling 2006 the year of transition in Iraq. That was a positive step. It was one to help bring unity and cohesion to a debate that is often too marked by partisan rancor. Now we can take another constructive step together by supporting this well-thought-out amendment. The Levin-Reed amendment affirms a statement the Senate made last year: 2006 should be a year of transition if Iraq, and it asks the President to present a flexible plan for that ongoing transition, one that can give some shape and direction to the oft-repeated mantra that -- quote -- "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." This amendment states that an open-ended commitment in Iraq is unsustainable and urges that actions be undertaken to help the American people and the Iraqi people achieve success. The amendment says that the Iraqis should take steps to promote more power-sharing in Iraq, including through constitutional changes necessary to avert civil conflict. The amendment says that the President of the United States should convene an international summit on Iraq to increase the burden sharing in efforts to stabilize the country. The amendment says that the government of Iraq should disarm the violent militias and insist on integrity in the Iraqi armed forces and police security forces. The amendment says that the United States President should begin the transition of U.S. forces with the end game in mind of a three-fold mission. That mission would involve continued training of Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. assets and personnel and targeted counterterrorism activities. And by the end of 2006, the President should submit a plan to congress for continuing the phased redeployment. The amendment also says the U.S. should continue heavy diplomatic engagement in Iraq for the foreseeable future. And finally, the President should assess the impact that our operations in Iraq are having on the overall U.S. campaign against terrorism around the world. One thing that has become apparent in recent months is that many Americans are losing confidence in our Iraq policy, not in our servicemen and women, but on the policy. I know the history tells us that the U.S. is most successful in undertakings of this magnitude and difficulty when the American people are united wholeheartedly behind the effort. It is my sincere hope that this amendment, and the plan for phased redeployment appropriate to conditions on the ground that it calls for, will help contribute to success in Iraq by giving the American people new confidence that we are moving toward a clear destination along a clear and distinct path. It is precisely because I recognize the stability in Iraq is important and because I want this mission to succeed that I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment. The only path to sustainable stability in Iraq requires Iraqis assuming responsibility for their own security and making the political accommodations necessary to avert a civil war. The U.S. cannot do this for them. An open-ended policy commitment to Iraq is not helping matters. It is letting the extremists and divisive elements hide behind the cloak of nationalism, and it is providing a rationale for postponing the tough choice which must be made by the Iraqi people. And so those -- to those who would rather engage in mudslinging and those who would rather politicize this vital national security issue, we must think again about the tough choices before the American people. We all want, I believe in this chamber, to be successful in Iraq. We need to work with the democratically elected Iraqi government to get there. This amendment is in step with their vision. I want to succeed in Iraq, and I also want a broader foreign policy goal to succeed. Mr. President, I submit that the goal of defeating the terrorist networks that wish to do us harm is a goal that we must defeat. It is precisely because that goal is so important that I am concerned about the consequences for our national security of an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq, and that is one of the principle reasons for supporting the Levin-Reed amendment. The fight against terrorism is a global endeavor. And for years Iraq has been sucking up most of the resources, the troops and the political will and capital in this room. This amendment calls on the administration to responsibly adjust our policies so that we don't strain our military to the breaking point even as this global struggle rages on for years and perhaps decades to come. The very fact that that amendment is likely to be criticized from both sides of the Iraqi debate is in my view an endorsement of its language. This amendment rejects any call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq because that would be irresponsible and would not serve our national interests. A failed Iraqi state would further destabilize an already volatile region creating a lasting haven for terrorists. Our national security imperatives mandate our commitment to Iraq's success. There is no cutting and there is no running in this language. There is no deadline. There is no arbitrary time frame. But this amendment also rejects the fingers crossed, stay-the-meandering-course approach favored by those whose strategy seems to involve little more than hoping for the best. Optimism is a terrific attitude but it does not make a major foreign policy directive. Success in Iraq in my view is dependent on several factors: controlling violence, creating a stable government of national unity, delivering basic services, the promise of economic development to the Iraqi people, and establishing strong and supportive relations between Iraq and its neighbors in the region. If any of these pillars are missing, Iraq's future becomes uncertain and unstable. America can help, but ultimately it is the Iraqis who must achieve these goals on their own. This amendment calls for us to begin a shift in that responsibility to the Iraqi people, even as we work to shore up international cooperation and support and reaffirm our commitment to intense, ongoing engagement. Mr. President, since I became a United States Senator, over the last year and a half I have traveled twice to Iraq to get a better sense of the status of our mission. Each time I have been overwhelmed with admiration for our servicemen and women who are serving so honorable and who, along with their families, are sacrificing so much for this nation and for this war. I am so proud of our troops and we must do right by them. Sitting on our hands while policy drifts from one goal and mission to another with no end in sight just is not good enough. By the end of this year, we will have been in Iraq nearly as long as we were engaged in all of World War II. But as sectarian violence is on the rise, the picture in Iraq is getting murkier and murkier. Congress needs to get into the mix but to get into this mix responsibly. I hope that my colleagues, both those who support this amendment and those who find fault with this amendment, will engage in this debate in that spirit. Our men and women in uniform and the American people deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
# # #
|
||
