BIRMINGHAM - “General David Petraeus is an excellent officer who has been charged with the unenviable responsibility of directing American soldiers while they police a civil war.  But with respect to the general, the primary question is not whether the “surge” is working—it is whether there is adequate justification for the 721 American lives lost in combat since the surge started.  The next question is whether the Iraqi civil war deserves the loss of another 1000 American soldiers between now and when the President leaves office.

“I believed in March 2003 that there was not an adequate case for the United States to wage a war in which our soldiers and our treasury would bear almost all of the cost.  As I note the relentless loss of life in Iraq and the violence within and across religious lines, I am more convinced than ever that our policies are not serving our valiant soldiers.  Without this war, our forces could have been fully engaged in the campaign in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and to locate and kill Bin Laden.  Without the political toll from this war, our strategic efforts could have better marshaled against the genuine threat that exists in Iran, and is worse today than four years ago.

“Finally, I take issue with some of my colleagues who believe that it is not Congress’ task to “second-guess” General Petraeus’ conclusions.  The Constitution makes the choice to wage war a prerogative of Congress, not the military.  This division of power is as wise today as it was in 1789, and I hope that the leadership in Congress will be mindful of it as they craft a plan to draw this war to a close before more Alabamians and more Americans die.”