WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator John Kerry spoke from the Senate floor tonight, urging his colleagues to change the mission in Iraq. Kerry told them that the evidence is clearer than ever that the US must set a deadline to transition the US military mission and pressure Iraqi politicians to achieve a political resolution to their civil war.

Below is Kerry’s statement, as prepared:

 
For months now, those of us who believe we need a new strategy in Iraq have been told, wait until September.  Wait until we hear from General Petraeus.  Wait until Ambassador Crocker testifies.  Wait until the escalation has time to work.

 
Sadly, while Washington waited, hundreds more Americans have died. 

 
Meanwhile, the United States Senate seems so distracted by a much-discussed, much condemned ad in a newspaper two weeks ago.  They saw a chance to score cheap partisan political points based on a newspaper ad instead of confronting the ugly mess of an Iraqi civil war that’s on the front page every day.  It is as insulting as it is illuminating that in a week long debate in which each side can offer just five amendments, the Republicans would waste one of their chances to change a broken policy by choosing instead to embrace a political stunt.

 
Mr. President, we should be working to change course in Iraq.  All the Bush Administration has done is put a good soldier’s face on the President’s old, failed strategy.   But even General Petraeus himself was candid enough to initially admit that even he doesn’t know if the current mission in Iraq is making us safer.

 
The escalation sent American soldiers into harm’s way to give Iraqi politicians a chance and the breathing space to reach a political solution—but without deadlines, without accountability, without leverage—the Iraqis did nothing. The Iraqi government is as divided as it’s ever been.  None of us should be surprised that there is no real political progress in Iraq today.  As Tom Friedman said the other day:

 
“Negotiating in the Middle East without leverage is playing baseball without a bat and that's basically what we've been doing because we won't get up from the table. …there's never been a baseball owner in history who went into negotiation with another player and said, I can't get up from the table. That's a negotiation that's not going to end well.”

 
The open-ended, seemingly endless commitment of massive numbers of American troops in Iraq has done nothing to create political progress.  George Bush told us that “reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible”— it has not it.  He promised to hold the Iraqis accountable for meeting the benchmarks that they themselves agreed to – he did not.

 
The result? While Americans fight and die to give Iraqis “breathing room,” Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve the political issues that matter the most.  No progress on the linchpin issue of sharing oil revenues.  No de-Ba’athification law, no provincial elections, and no amnesty.

 
By any measure, that’s a failing grade for a purported new strategy that is really more of the same that has failed in forging the political reconciliation that is the last, best hope for ending a bloody civil war over age-old sectarian differences. 

 
Those who support the status quo in Iraq claim we have changed the strategy.  They’re wrong.   We have changed tactics—resulting in some hard-won and welcome gains by our troops.  But these tactical changes have not addressed the core Sunni-Shiite conflict that is driving the civil war.  They will not bring peace and long-term stability to Iraq.  Only Iraqis can do that.  No, what we have today is a strategy for staying – not a strategy for winning.  Rather than “no surrender,” the policy today is “no way out.”

 
That is why we must demand a change in our strategy to a new mission.  Now.  Not next March…  When we’re sure to hear a familiar message from this Administration: violence is up in some places, down in others, and though it may be difficult to see, we’re making progress….  And, surprise, surprise, we need another six months.

 
That, my friends, is the sound of a President who has decided to wait out his time in office and shift responsibility for this disaster to the next President.  If that’s what this President is doing, then that is unconscionable.   We don’t have the luxury of continuing to get this wrong.  Americans are dying each day.  Every month this year saw more U.S. military casualties than the same month last year.

 
As I have been saying for a year and a half now: We should be refocusing the mission on pursuing Al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. facilities and personnel.  And we need to set a deadline for the redeployment of those U.S. troops not necessary to complete those core missions in order to force the Iraqis to make the tough political compromises necessary to end their civil war.

 
In the last few weeks, we have heard a number of arguments for staying the current course.  As the dust settles on the latest round of debate, I want to take this opportunity to respond specifically to the case made by those who would perpetuate a failing strategy in Iraq. 

 
FIRST:   Those who want more of the same failed policy tell us that setting a date is tantamount to surrender.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.  After four-and-a-half years of failure, setting a firm deadline to change the mission is necessary to change the equation on the ground.  What is going on, as General Petraeus said, is a sectarian competition for power and resources.  As long as we tell Iraqi politicians we will stay as long as it takes, we give them an excuse to take as long as they want.  It should be clear that only a firm deadline will change this disastrous dynamic.

 
Meanwhile, supporters of the escalation say that we can’t have political reconciliation until we secure Iraq—but just look what’s happened.   President Bush told us that “reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.”  We heard last week from General Petraeus: there may be some tactical progress in some places on the security front, but that has simply not translated into any political compromises between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

 
In fact, General Jones’ commission suggests that the President has it backwards: political progress is necessary if our security gains are to be anything more than short-lived.  And I quote: "The single most important event that could immediately and favorably affect Iraq's direction and security is political reconciliation. . . .  Sustained progress within the Iraqi Security Forces depends on such a political agreement."

 
SECOND, Supporters of the escalation ask for more time to translate military successes into political progress—but there’s been plenty of time spent already—not to mention American blood and treasure.  If General Petraeus is correct that sectarian violence began decreasing in January, then where are the corresponding political gains the President promised us?   Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has been in office since May 2006.  But the Iraqi government has made no political progress on the benchmarks the Iraqis established for themselves. 

 
Just two weeks ago, a GAO report found that Iraqis had met only one of the eight crucial benchmarks for political reconciliation.   Where’s the progress?  Ask supporters of this escalation and they’ll tell you—as they would have anytime over the last 4 and a half year—it’s right around the next corner.  

 
The lessons are clear: No deadline means no accountability for Iraqi politicians.  And no accountability means no progress.  This is a losing equation—and we need to change it before we sacrifice any more American lives to a failed policy.

 
THIRD, Supporters of this escalation point to the consequences of failure in Iraq.  We should all be humbled by the tragedy and instability already unleashed by this war.   But think about that logic for a second: Because we cannot afford to fail, we need to keep pursuing a strategy that is failing.  In fact, the opposite is true: If we cannot afford to lose, we cannot afford to continue a losing strategy. 

 
We cannot be lulled into inaction by the fear to change course and instead stick with the deadly course we’re on—six more months, wait until September, wait until March, we might turn a corner….until one day you realize: We’ve lost sight of the mission.  We’ve lost sight of our interests.  We’ve lost sight of what’s at stake here.  We’re paralyzed in Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda are thrilled we’re bogged down there with no end in sight, and young Americans are dying at greater levels than in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.  We need to change this losing equation—and that starts with a deadline.

 
FOURTH, The President’s allies warn that Iraq could become a failed state.  Well guess what?  According to Foreign Policy magazine, Iraq is becoming a failed state under the current strategy.  In fact it ranks second in the entire world on their Failed States Index — behind only Sudan — as the state most at risk for failure.  That will only change when the Iraqi government steps up and assumes its responsibilities -- which it will not do as long as we are providing a security blanket to pursue their narrow sectarian agendas.

 
They warn of a humanitarian catastrophe but, as the New York Times reported earlier this month, many mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in Iraq have already been ethnically cleansed.  Baghdad had a 65 percent Sunni-majority population around the start of the war; it is now a 75 percent Shia-majority city.  What we’re supposedly staying in Iraq to try to prevent is in fact happening under our noses.  Ambassador Crocker said as much to Senator McCain in last week’s Armed Services Committee hearing. 

 
We are witnessing right now a very high-level of sectarian violence.  Well over a thousand civilians are dying each month, and across Iraq the level of violence is higher than it was in 2004-2005.  The Washington Post reported on Monday that about 2 million Iraqis are displaced inside Iraq, while 2.2 million have fled to neighboring countries.  60,000 Iraqis are evacuating their homes every month.   

 
They point to the legacy of Vietnam, but they draw all the wrong conclusions.  In Vietnam, it wasn’t our withdrawal that caused instability in the region;  it was the underlying causes of the violence.  It was a civil war our military couldn’t end.  Those conditions were the result of our going in—and of the underlying conditions.  It was the result of how we entered and escalated the war—not how we left the country.  

 
Our troops cannot end this Iraqi civil war that is claiming so many innocent lives.  Only a  political accommodation between the Iraqis can accomplish that.

 
We ought to be working overtime to gain greater support from Iraq’s neighbors – who have some leverage with the warring parties – to break this stalemate: but instead of pursuing a regional strategy, this Administration has treated diplomacy like the ugly step child of military force.  The same people who ask our troops to make the ultimate sacrifice every day, refuse to do what is necessary to get other countries to become stakeholders in a stable Iraq.  Where’s the initiative?  Where’s the diplomacy? Where’s the leadership? 

 
A responsible redeployment from Iraq would allow us to refocus our energies on regional diplomacy from a position of strength.  Our enemies love that we’re tied down in Iraq.  Right now, Iran and Syria are content to stand by and play a destabilizing role in Iraq because our brave troops are bearing the brunt of the responsibility for policing that civil war. 

 
FIFTH:  Supporters of the Bush escalation say that we cannot abandon the central front of the Global War on Terror, which they contend is in Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri would love for the central front of the war on terror to be in Iraq: you know why?  Because they’re busy planning attacks, from the sanctuary they’ve created in Afghanistan and Pakistan — not far from where we had the chance to capture them but let them go nearly six years ago. 

 
We will never allow an Iraqi safe haven for Al Qaeda.   The plan that Democrats support keeps in place those troops necessary to take the fight to the terrorists operating there.  None of us will ever give up this fight.  That’s why our plan would refocus our troop mission on hunting and killing Al Qaeda — not refereeing the streets of Baghdad in this civil war continuing to give Al Qaeda a recruiting bonanza. 

 
The reality is that the Bush strategy of escalation in Iraq is making us weaker against terrorism.  It is emboldening Iran, emboldening Hamas, and emboldening Hezbollah.

 
Every day we spend in Iraq, we are diverting our best assets from the main fight

against Al Qaeda’s central headquarters in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  This July’s National Intelligence Estimate told us that Al Qaeda has “regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability”—its ability to attack us here—because it has a new safe haven for its top leadership and operational lieutenants in Pakistan. And if you are wondering about Al Qaeda’s priorities, just today, bin Laden declared war on the government of Pakistan.

 
The Bush escalation in Iraq has not protected our homeland: Where there was previously no threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq, we have created one.  Where there was a real threat, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, we have not done nearly enough to extinguish it. 

 
Meanwhile, the Administration’s current Iraq strategy has been a recruitment poster for

terrorism, according to our own intelligence community.  This April’s National Intelligence Estimate told us that Iraq is a “cause celebre” for jihadists, and is serving as a fundraising bonanza for Al Qaeda.  The CIA put it simply: “our presence in Iraq is creating more members of Al Qaeda than we are killing in Iraq.”  The bottom-line is that every day we stay in our current posture in Iraq is another day we play into the hands of our real enemies.

We all agree that Al Qaeda cannot be allowed to set up shop in Iraq.  The fact is that Shia will never allow an organization like Al Qaeda to take over the country.  Al Qaeda hates Shia at least as much as they hate us.  Kurds won’t allow Al Qaeda to take over Iraq— and those two groups make up 80 to 85 percent of the country.  Even the Sunni in Anbar have now decided they don’t want Al Qaeda in their neighborhoods and villages either..  

 
Truth-be-told, it is our overwhelming footprint that energizes Al Qaeda in Iraq.  If we reduce our footprint — as the Iraq Study Group and General Jones have recommended, I believe the Iraqis themselves, will drive Al Qaeda from Iraq, with a leaner U.S. military and special forces there to finish the job. 

 
SIXTH: Proponents of staying the course indefinitely say we cannot abandon Iraq to Iran.    On the contrary, Iran has already gained an advantage because we are bogged down in Iraq.  This week’s Pentagon report concluded that Iran already exerts significant influence in Iraq, particularly in the Shiite south.  In Basra, the British have pulled back to their bases.  We now have an essentially Iranian-dominated southern Iraq that has Iranian-backed militias fighting for control of the region’s resources.  But, of course, George Bush is not proposing to escalate troops to save the south.

 
We are all concerned about Iran’s destabilizing role in Iraq.  But what the Administration has failed to understand is that there isn’t a military solution to Iran’s role in Iraq.  Despite the President’s escalation, Iran continues to send operatives and deadly weapons into Iraq.  We need to change the mission so that we can deal with Iran from a position of strength. 

 
We also need to engage in a tough-minded diplomacy with Tehran where we make clear that America will not stand by and allow Iraq to become an extension of Iran.  As the Iraq Study Group told us, we cannot do this without first opening a genuine channel of communication.  Right now, the Administration is going through the motions of an occasional meeting with Iranian diplomats as a sop to its critics.  But our diplomacy has no teeth because Iran thinks we are so tied down in Iraq that we cannot defend our interests.

 
You’ve heard the arguments and counter-arguments flying around Washington this month—a month when, like so many months before, the American people were promised accountability but given only more rhetoric. 

 
The rhetoric of “no surrender” does nothing to illuminate a grave and serious dilemma of 160,000 US troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war our troops can’t be equipped to end.  The rhetoric, while we witness a catastrophe, is that staying in Iraq is the only way to prevent a catastrophe.  That’s a failure to look reality in the face.  The way to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam is not by repeating them, by staying in Iraq and pursuing a policy we know can’t work.

 
This is a historic crisis in our foreign policy—a crisis of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s making.  The fact is that no path forward is without tremendous cost and risk to this great nation.  But what I do know is that the American people have spoken: this war was a mistake and is not working.   It would be tragic if we continue to compound old mistakes with new ones. 

That is why I believe strongly—for all the reasons I’ve just mentioned—that we need a new strategy.  And I hope you’ll join me in sending this President a message, loud and clear, with too many votes to ignore, filibuster, or veto: the current strategy isn’t working, and we need a new direction in Iraq.

 
###