| |
 |
| September 12th, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Jared Whitley 202-224-0134 |
[  ] Listen to Radio Clip |
Printable Version |
|
|
HATCH: ATTACK ON GEN. PETRAEUS IS DISGRACEFUL
|
| |
Washington - Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) spoke today on the Senate floor in support of this week’s Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Army general and commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. In the speech, Hatch denounces attacks against Petraeus by the group MoveOn.org.
Hatch's prepared remarks follow.
Mr. President, we live in a cynical age, where the truth is often discarded because it does not meet the goals of an election campaign strategy or it is not what the core constituencies of certain political movements wish to hear.
One does not need to look any further to prove this point than the media’s portrayal of General Petraeus’s testimony before Congress this week.
Lost in the coverage were the hard facts, and indeed the veracity, of the personal assessment of a remarkable leader. He has spent years in Iraq, first, as the commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the initial race to Baghdad and then as the officer in charge of training the Iraqi Army. This was followed by his authorship of the Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual, that was used as a basis for our current strategy, and now in his role as the commander of Multi-National Forces-Iraq.
So let us lay aside the rhetoric and learn the truth from this seasoned commander.
Here are General Petraeus’s own words:
“As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge ARE, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006. One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq…”
The General goes on to point out:
“Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each areas are still at troubling levels. Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas.”
These are the words of a trusted and very capable commander, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. They are insightful and show that, at long last, we are beginning to make significant progress.
I believe that Churchill could have been taking about our current prospects in Iraq when he said: This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
MoveOn.org
Yet even before General Petraeus gave us his professional military opinion on the status of the war, some attempted to undermine the veracity of his analysis and worse the character of the General himself.
Of course, I am speaking of the disgraceful actions of MoveOn.org in its now infamous advertisement. Before even having an opportunity to hear General Petraeus’s analysis, this group stated that General Petraeus is a “military man constantly at war with the facts.” It claimed that he was “cooking the books.” It asserted that his action is a betrayal of the American people.
This is shameful. There is no need to read between the lines here.
There is no subtext here.
The text is clear.
MoveOn.org is calling General Petraeus a liar.
According to this group, which is now almost as important as the unions in Democratic Party kingmaking, General Petraeus is injuring his country and endangering those under his command by lying about progress in Iraq.
Now anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General, and anybody who has taken the time and effort to follow his career, or his academic pursuits knows that this is an unwarranted and disgraceful allegation.
There might be a silver lining to this libel. Now all of America understands why Moveon.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots. Perhaps if they rejoined the reality-based community, they would actually wait to hear the General’s analysis before criticizing it.
Here is the reality.
General Petraeus is a consummate professional.
He is a man who has dedicated his life to his country.
And I would note that when you put on a uniform, dedicating your life to your country has the potential to mean a good deal more than running for Congress.
But Moveon.org, which has sadly become a core participant in policy making, General Petraeus is a disgrace to the uniform.
Let me be clear. It is MoveOn that is the disgrace. And I think it is important that the entire Congress publicly repudiate these absurd charges.
My Personal Experience
Mr. President, what was particularly galling about the inaccuracies of MoveOn.org comments is that many members of Congress have been to Iraq in the previous few months and have seen, with their own eyes, the progress that is being made. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the experiences that I had during a trip that I made to Iraq just a few months ago -- a trip where I was able to walk the streets of Ramadi.
As part of my preparation for this trip, I read with great interest the articles written by Michael Fumento and published in the Weekly Standard about the time he was embedded with US forces in Ramadi.
Mr. Fumento wrote as recently as eight months ago, that our forces in Ramadi, described the time between when they went out on patrol and when they were attacked as the 45 minute rule.
Under this rule, our forces hypothesized that it took the enemy 15 minutes to determine where an American patrol was and then 30 minutes to organize an attack.
Unfortunately, those attacks occurred with great frequency and severity.
However, during my recent trip to Ramadi, I walked -- admittedly in body armor and with a reasonably sized military escort -- in one of its major markets in the heart of that city’s downtown.
There, I saw what would be unimaginable just a few months ago: shopkeepers selling their goods; children playing; and urban life beginning to reemerge.
How did this happen?
First, the local tribal leaders had made a decision that they would longer tolerate the yoke of tyranny that had been placed upon them by al-Qaeda -- and make no mistake al-Qaeda is who we are fighting in Ramadi.
These leaders saw first hand how their fellow Sunni Muslims were murdered and tortured under al-Qaeda’s false exploitation of a noble and peaceful religion.
Not surprisingly, these sheiks began assisting Coalition forces, and most importantly their own Iraqi security forces, in rooting out the terrorists.
The New Counterinsurgency Strategy
The success I witnessed was attained due to the implementation of new tactics articulated in General Petraeus’s innovative Counterinsurgency Strategy.
Under this plan, large areas of Ramadi were encircled and then, Iraqi security forces, led a thorough search was conducted in each area.
Once these searches were completed and al-Qaeda rooted out, the progress was made permanent by placing Joint Security Stations throughout the newly cleared territory.
These Joint Security Stations are one of the major reasons we have seen such advancement in Ramadi and in other locations in Iraq.
Joint Security Stations are manned by Iraqi Army and Police forces as well as American forces who live in these installations in order to provide a permanent security presence for cleared neighborhoods.
Joint Security Stations accomplish three vital goals.
First, much like local police officers in any city, the U.S. forces become intimately involved in the security of the enjoining population.
Second, our soldiers also learn about the environment in which they are living and therefore, can more readily adapt their operations to better achieve the goal of providing security for the local population.
Third, our forces help to train and support the Iraqi units assigned to the Joint Security Stations. Ensuring the Iraqi forces have sufficient capabilities independently to provide security to their own population is, of course, one of the primary goals of the strategy.
The implementation of the Joint Security Stations is radically different from previous tactics.
In the past, U.S. forces would clear an area and then return to major bases on the periphery of town and move on to their next assignment.
The predicable result was that, shortly after the U.S. operation concluded the insurgents would return to the area.
No longer.
Joint Security Stations provide continuous security to the local population.
That is why the additional troops sent to Iraq as part of the surge are so important. It is not more for more’s sake but to have sufficient forces to implement effective counterinsurgency strategies such as the Joint Security Stations.
Fortunately, the success that we are seeing in al Anbar is being replicated in other locations throughout Iraq. In Baghdad, I was briefed by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the situation in that city.
Here, too, I found that through the implementation of new strategies and tactics, such as the Joint Security Stations, progress had been made.
One of the early criticisms of the new strategy was the contention that, even if you secure Baghdad, the terrorists will just move to the provinces such as Diyala in the north. In fact, the then-leader of al Qaeda, Abu Zarqawi, was killed in Diyala in 2006. However, just as in Ramadi, the Iraqi local leaders decided that they did not want to live under the tyranny of al Qaeda, and joined with us in the effort to throw the terrorists out of the major Diyala city of Baqubah.
However, what also made a lasting impression was the way in which General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker worked together. There are no bureaucratic fiefdoms here.
Far from it. In fact, as one watched the General and Ambassador finish each other sentences. I was not only by how integrated our new strategy is, but also by how each leader was searching to incorporate the other’s Department’s strengths in order to achieve the well-defined goal of defeating the insurgency and creating an Iraq that could independently secure its own future.
What choice do the Democrats offer?
Does this mean that victory in Iraq is imminent? Hardly.
If one looks to history, counter-insurgency operations are successful only after a significant period of time -- and we have only recently developed and implemented our new strategy.
So what are the other possible strategies?
Well, my friends on the other side of the aisle recently supported the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would start the reduction of our forces in 120 days.
Their legislation would only permit the forces to remain in Iraq that are necessary to protect US and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip and provide logistics support to the Iraqi Security Forces; and engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, affiliated groups and other terrorist organizations.
Let’s consider that strategy for a moment. Would that not mean that U.S. forces would be confined to large operating bases in order to protect Coalition infrastructure and support Iraqi forces -- only venturing out to conduct raids against terrorists?
Does this strategy sound familiar? It does to me.
The Levin-Reed plan reminds me of the failed Rumsfeld plan. Remember, under Rumsfeld’s plan, our forces were concentrated in large bases on the periphery of urban areas, only venturing into town to conduct raids and as my colleague of Delaware often reminded us: conducting patrols where our forces would only speed through areas.
This is a failed policy, yet my colleagues on the other side are determined to repeat it.
But, this time, we would proceed with even fewer troops. We all know, and as many of my Democratic friends continue to point out, this was one of the reasons why our initial strategy failed in the first place.
Then there is the cost in human lives if this plan were implemented.
As General Petraeus’s testimony articulated, elements of the Iraqi Security Forces are making progress, but they continue to require strong support from Coalition forces. That training and support are in part being provided in the Joint Security Stations.
But, if we are to leave precipitously, how many innocent people will be killed?
Remember, it is al Qaeda who is a major instigator of the sectarian violence. According to their adherents, their goal is simple: slaughter.
I understand that the American people are discouraged by this war -- but how will history judge us if we permit the whole sale slaughter of innocent civilians?
If these arguments do not sway you, then let me ask a question about our own self interest. What happens if Iraq becomes a failed state?
Does anyone really believe that al-Qaeda would not use Iraq as a base of operations to conduct terrorist attacks against our homeland?
Does anyone really believe that al-Qaeda would not exploit the petroleum wealth of Iraq to further its objectives?
Remember, in Afghanistan, a country of few natural resources, there were reports after the fall of Kabul that al-Qaeda was working on chemical and biological weapons.
I wonder what al-Qaeda would buy with the billions in dollars it would accumulate if it controlled even a fraction of Iraq’s oil wealth.
Mr. President, we as Americans are known for asking “what is the bottom line?”
Here it is.
We have made enormous mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
So what do we do?
Do we concede defeat, which is really what the Levin-Reed amendment offers?
Do we hope for the best that al-Qaeda will leave us in peace?
Or do we follow the only sensible strategy that is beginning to show some signs of success?
I believe we all know the sensible answer to that question. We must not yield.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
