Jack Kingston

Congressman credits surge, courage of Iraqis for landmark agreement for withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2011

After Iraq’s parliament approved a measure that would provide for a structured withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by 2011, Congressman Jack Kingston (R/GA-1) praised the action as a landmark step towards bringing troops home safely.

“Two years ago, this wouldn’t have been possible,” Congressman Kingston said, “but the success of surge combined with the determination of the Iraqi people has brought us an agreement that will bring our troops home safely.  That this came through the political process rather than through violence is a testament to the great progress we’ve made there.”

The agreement, which came after 11 months of negotiations, provides that Iraq’s army, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), will take security responsibilities for all Iraqi cities, villages and localities by June of next year as a first step toward total withdrawal by 2011.  In the intervening time, U.S. troops will provide support as needed.

With the United Nations mandate authorizing the presence of U.S. troops expiring December 31, the agreement now serves as the legal framework governing the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq.

From today’s Washington Post:

“WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq’s parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year — clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office.” Full editorial here.

Important information on the legislation:

• eliminates the party slate system which allowed religious factions to dominate elections
• secures 25% of seats for women to give them a voice in their government
• allows Sunni leaders to compete in elections

This is great news for Iraq and is a another sign of the great progress being made there.

(Photo courtesy John Carrington/Savannah Morning News)

Yesterday, Major General Rick Lynch and the Special Troops Batallion of Fort Stewart were greated with a welcome home ceremony.  3rd ID troops were deployed as part of General Petraeu’s surge and did and excellent job.  According to General Lynch:

“We killed or captured 6,000 insurgents,” he said. “We went from 25 attacks a day to less than two … and we turned what was called the ‘Triangle of Death’ into a triangle of life.” (Savannah Morning News, 6/3/08)

The 3rd ID is the pride of Georgia’s First District and we’re all so glad to see them home.  Our thoughts and prayers remain for the safe return of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team and the 4th Brigade who continue their mission in Iraq.

General Lynch also notes the three biggest challenges facing progress in Iraq:

“Lynch said the three biggest threats to success in Iraq remain: Sunni extremists, traditionally affiliated with al-Qaida; Shiite extremists; and Iranian fighters influencing the insurgency.  ‘These are people who for whatever reason, are trying to stop progress in Iraq,’ Lynch said.”

Incase you haven’t seen it yet, the Washington Post has an editorial today about the progress being made in Iraq.  A highlight:

“While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran.”

“..[T]he rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments – and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the ‘this-war-is-lost’ caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).”

We’re making progress in Iraq and it’s time to stop handicapping our troops with defeatist messages and bickering here at home.

The full editorial can be found here.

In an apparent bait-and-switch late last night, Senate Democrats removed some of their own extraneous domestic projects from the supplemental appropriations bill and set it up for a vote on Thursday.

Today’s CQ Today reports:

“Robert Menendez, D-N.J., invoked Senate Rule 16 on the floor, which requires that provisions in amendments to appropriations bills be relavent to the underlying legislation…”

That move struck provisions including expanded visas for immigrant agricultural workers, expansion of the federal telework program, and the prohibition of the establishment of a monument or protected area in the Gulf of Mexico - all of which have no place in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill.  Sounds good, right?

The article continues:

“Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., subsequently replaced the Appropriations Committee’s amendment with a new version written by leadership which does not include many provisions the committee added”

So, while they cleaned up some of the stuff, expanded veterans’ educational benefits, extension of unemployment insurance, and the delay of new Medicaid rules are all considered worthy of an emergency spending bill as is war policy provisions including a timeline for withdrawal.

As Jack said last week on C-SPAN, these are all things that may merit a debate in regular order.  They are not emergencies and should not be airdropped on the floor.

Last Thursday, House Republicans protested Democrat efforts to tie defeatist policies and a $54 billion tax increase on small businesses to troop funding - a move that will force their hands and require them to come back to the table.

Stay tuned as we’ve got to do something or troops won’t recieve their paychecks come after June.  Hopefully, the Democrats will come to their senses and fund the men and women who protect us every day.

Congressman Jerry Lewis, Republican Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee today introduced a clean supplemental that would provide troop funding without all the pork barrell, vote buying provisions Speaker Pelosi intends to include.

Lewis’ release:

Lewis Introduces H.R. 6026 – A Clean Supplemental to Provide Troop Funding

Without Strings and Extraneous Spending

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of the continued Republican opposition to the Democrats’ yet-unseen supplemental war funding legislation, today Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif), Ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, introduced a separate war funding bill (H.R. 6026) as an alternative to the Democrats’ catch-all spending proposal*.

Lewis’s bill provides much-needed funding for U.S. servicemen and women, the Department of Defense, and foreign operations overseas. Unlike the Democrats’ legislation – which has yet to be revealed to Members of Congress or the public – Lewis’s bill is “clean” and does not include extraneous spending and war policy provisions.

In addition, the Democrat proposal would tie strings on the troop funding by including unacceptable war policies to overstep our experienced military commanders, politicize our national security, and legislate war strategy. Lewis’s bill contains no such egregious provisions.

“Our troops have been waiting for over a year for Congress to approve the funds they need to do their jobs. However, the Democrat leadership of the House has chosen to reward the service and patience of our men and women in uniform by loading up their funding legislation with unrelated spending and inappropriate war policy provisions,” Lewis said.

“Contrary to the Democrat supplemental legislation, my bill will provide our troops with the resources they need – without expensive add-ons designed to sway votes and provide political cover for anti-war Democrats.” Lewis continued.

Lewis’s bill matches the President’s request and includes $178 billion in total spending for the Department of Defense, State and Foreign operations, and military construction. In comparison, the Democrat proposal contains approximately $250 billion in total spending and includes funds for numerous extraneous programs – such as $51 billion in a new veterans’ entitlement program, $11 billion in unemployment insurance extension, $178 million for federal prisons, and $210 million for the 2010 census.

*Funding levels related Democrat’s supplemental proposal are estimates due to lack of available text.

The opening paragraph of today’s article in Roll Call sums up the last year of the debate on Iraq:

“A year and a half after voters’ frustrations over the Iraq War carried Democrats to victory in Congress, the last solid opportunity for the party to change the direction of the conflict appears likely to pass with only token attempts to bring it to an end.”

Rather than answer the call of the left-wing groups that swept them into power, Democrats are offering up no real effort to bring the Iraq war to a close.  They’re in the driver’s seat, they hold the power yet all they do is blame Republicans.

The article points out that the last significant debate on Iraq (last February in the Senate) occurred when, “Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) only brought [it] up as a way to assuage anti-war crusader, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).”

Perhaps these leaders are finally realizing that we’re making progress in Iraq.  Perhaps they’re realizing that their campaign promises were unrealistic.  In either case, it’s starting to show and one’s got to wonder how they’re going to energize their, “angry, far-left base” this year.

To read the full article, click here.

In case you missed it, the Savannah Morning News has a great editorial today about why we Speaker Pelosi should stop blocking the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.  As you may recall, she had to change house rules to prevent a vote on the measure that would level the playing field for American exports into Colombia and help stabilize a crucial ally that can help stem the growing power of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

From the editorial:

“SPEAKER OF the House Nancy Pelosi should stop playing politics with a measure that could level the playing field for trade between the United States and Colombia…

“A permanent free trade agreement proposed by President Bush would end that disparity and make American products cheaper to buy in Colombia…

“the Colombian Free Trade Agreement would do more than bolster this complementary trade - it could help stem the tide of anti-American sentiment in this hemisphere. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a friend of the U.S., has worked diligently to rein in illegal drugs and government corruption…

“A stable Colombia could then act as a bulwark against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as socialist leaders in Chile, Bolivia and Brazil. What’s more, Republicans are not the only ones calling for free trade with Colombia…”

To read the full article, click here.

For more information on the agreement, check out the U.S. Trade Representative’s website here.

Georgia’s own Jimmy Carter is set to meet with the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal.  It’s shocking and sad when someone who once led our great Nation is taking tea time with someone who’s aided and abetted those who’d like to do us harm.Here’s a piece in the Chicago Tribune to give you all the details.�

We’ve been watching General Petraeus and David Crocker all day but during the break, found this great article in today’s Los Angeles Times by Max Boot.

In the article, Boot debunks many of the assertions of opponents to the Iraq war.  Most notably, however, he concludes the article with this:

“The question that opponents of the war effort have to answer is: Will Iraq’s problems become better or worse if we pull our troops out? Few who have spent any time in Iraq doubt that an American withdrawal would trigger chaos that would make the recent fighting in Basra look like a picnic. That would be not only a terrible stain on our honor (we might be indirectly responsible for genocide) but a significant strategic setback because it could destabilize the entire region.

“Victory — defined as a democratic state that does not oppress its own people, provide a haven for terrorists, proliferate weapons of mass destruction or threaten its neighbors — remains eminently achievable if we listen to the best advice of Petraeus and Crocker and resist the urge to pull our troops out too fast. If we ignore their warnings and head for the exits, we are assured of the worst military defeat in U.S. history and a major victory for Shiite and Sunni extremists who will continue to attack us in the future.”

To read the full article, click here.

General David Petraeus is testifying right now before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  In his opening statement, he identified three important factors contributing to the progress in Iraq.

The surge

“First…the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces”

Cooperation

“the employment of Coalition and Iraqi Forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue Al Qaeda-Iraq, to combat criminals and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.”

Iraqi citizens joining the fight

“Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni “Awakening” in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected AQI’s indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena. Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis—some, former insurgents—to contribute to local security as so-called “Sons of Iraq.” With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda-Iraq, the threat posed by AQI—while still lethal and substantial—has been reduced significantly.”

Henry Kissinger has a great article this week entitled “The Three Revolutions”.  In it, Kissinger describes the three major shifts in world politics we currently face.

On the disenchantment with America’s foreign policy and shifts in Europe: 

“Conventional wisdom holds that disenchantment with President Bush’s alleged unilateralism is at the heart of European-American disagreements. But it will become apparent soon after the change of administrations that the principal difference between the two sides of the Atlantic is that America is still a traditional nation-state whose people respond to calls for sacrifices on behalf of a much wider definition of the national interest than Europe’s definition.”

On Jihadist Islam and the war on terror: 

“Jihadist Islam rejects national sovereignty based on secular state models; it seeks to extend its reach to wherever significant populations profess the Muslim faith. Since neither the international system nor the internal structure of existing states has legitimacy in Islamist eyes, its ideology leaves little room for Western notions of negotiation or equilibrium in a region of vital interest to the security and well-being of the industrial states. That struggle is endemic; we do not have the option of withdrawal. We can retreat from any one place, such as Iraq, but only to be obliged to resist from new positions, probably more disadvantageously.”

On the growth in power of Asian nation states:

“These transformations take place against the backdrop of a third trend, a shift in the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Paradoxically, this redistribution of power is to a part of the world where nations still possess the characteristics of traditional European states. The major states of Asia — China, Japan, India and, in time, possibly Indonesia — view each other the way participants in the European balance of power did, as inherent competitors even when they occasionally participate in cooperative ventures.”

Kissinger concludes:

“No previous generation has had to deal with different revolutions occurring simultaneously in separate parts of the world. The quest for a single, all-inclusive remedy is chimerical. In a world in which the sole superpower is a proponent of the prerogatives of the traditional nation-state, where Europe is stuck in halfway status, where the Middle East does not fit the nation-state model and faces a religiously motivated revolution, and where the nations of South and East Asia still practice the balance of power, what is the nature of the international order that can accommodate these different perspectives? What should be the role of Russia, which is affirming a notion of sovereignty comparable to America’s and a strategic concept of the balance of power similar to Asia’s? Are existing international organizations adequate for this purpose? What goals can America realistically set for itself and the world community? Is the internal transformation of major countries an attainable goal? What objectives must be sought in concert, and what are the extreme circumstances that would justify unilateral action?

“This is the kind of debate we need, not focus-group-driven slogans designed to grab headlines.”

What are your thoughts?

Fred Kagen with AEI has a great piece tracking the progress in Iraq.  According to his report, the Iraqi government has met 12 of the 18 benchmarks established by Congress.

Kagen writes:

“As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made “little” or “no” political progress is simply false-to-fact.“

To view the full report, click here.

Today, both the AP and Reuters are reporting on the drop in violence in Iraq which has dropped 70 percent since June. American commanders on the ground attribute the drop to the increase in U.S. troops and the Iraqi people rising up against al-Qaida.

In short: the surge is working.