Rep. Andrews Backs Resolution to Oppose Troop Escalation in Iraq

Last week I delivered a speech on the House floor in support of the Iraq resolution that, while affirming our support of our men and women in uniform, opposes the President’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq by increasing troop levels.  The civil war in Iraq is a result of sectarian violence. Putting more American men and women in the middle of this civil war is reckless and will not solve the problems in Iraq.  In my speech, I laid out my policy for reducing the violence and stabilizing Iraq.  I have included the full text of the speech below.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because it provides the affirmation and the change that I believe we need in Iraq. The affirmation is essentially universal in this House. It is an affirmation that we are irrevocably committed to arm, support, equip, and protect the troops that we have sent to Iraq. We are committed to stand by the young men and women who have made the choice to sacrifice for this country. That issue is not an issue.

 What is an issue is whether American policy is working in Iraq or failing in Iraq. I believe it is failing, and I believe that a vote for this resolution is a vote for change.

 We have frequently heard, Mr. Speaker, from the minority side that they would like to hear a plan. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they start listening to this debate and to the American people.

 Here is how you build a plan: First, you acknowledge reality by properly defining the problem. The administration persists in rhetoric that defines the conflict in Iraq as a struggle between forces of civilization on one hand and the forces which wrought September 11 on the other. To some extent this characterization is accurate, but to a greater extent this characterization is inaccurate.

 A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is not the result of Islamic violence against American troops, although it exists. A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian violence, Shiia against Sunni, Sunni against Shiia, and occasionally others against the Kurds. This is not the position of the Democratic Party. This is the observation of the military and intelligence leadership in public documents of this country. Sectarian violence is the principal problem in Iraq.

 If the problem in Iraq were that a fragile but legitimate young government was struggling to hang on but could not overcome the resistance, then this idea of a troop surge would make sense. The idea of sending more fighters to defeat the resistance would make sense. This is not the proper definition of the problem. The troop surge does not send more fighters to defeat the resistance. It sends more referees to inject themselves into the violence between Shiia and Sunni militia and warfighters. The problem in Iraq is largely, not exclusively but largely, how to stop the sectarian violence.

 The second change that we must have is a change that vests the Iraqis themselves with the primary responsibility and eventually the exclusive responsibility to defeat that sectarian violence. Sending more American troops to do the job of the Iraqis is not the answer. Insisting that the Iraqis do their own job, defend their own country, fight their own fight is the answer.

 Now, the United States should not divorce itself from that effort. The United States, in my view, should not immediately vest the Iraqis with all that authority. But sending more young Americans to fight for legitimacy of the Iraqi Government will not further the Iraqi Government. It will defer it. I will weaken it. It will undermine it. There is one way, and one way only, to determine whether the Iraqis themselves are willing to fight for this government, whether Shiia are willing to fight Shiia militia, whether Sunni are willing to fight Sunni militia. And that is to let them do it, not to give the job to more and more Americans. This is the change that we need.

 And, finally, we need a change which recognizes that the principal problem in reaching a unity government in Iraq is political negotiation. Now, this is not to say that diplomats alone can solve this problem, but it is most certainly to say that if those who are vested in the outcome of this civil war are not brought to a conference table, brought to a negotiation, and compelled or encouraged to reach a solution, I doubt very much that it will come.

 The United States has become the guarantor of the status quo in Iraq, and the status quo is failing. The best way to serve the interests of the American troops is to engage in the democratic debate for which they are fighting. Young Americans are fighting and dying so that Iraqis will have the right to debate their country’s future. It would be sadly and bitterly ironic if we abrogated our responsibility to debate our country’s future over what they should be doing in that country and how long they should be there.

 If you want to serve the troops, have the debate. And if you want to promote the idea of avoiding failure in Iraq, then change the policy in Iraq. Do not sustain the status quo. I believe that if you want to change the policy in Iraq, voting yes on resolution 63 is the right first step.

Return to the Washington Updates Page