Carl Levin: Levin Floor Statement on Iraq Bridge Funding Bill

November 16, 2007 -- WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., delivered the following statement on the Senate floor this morning regarding the Senate’s consideration of the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008. The bill would provide $50 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq.

Once again the Senate has an opportunity to address the situation in Iraq. This morning, we are considering a motion to proceed to H.R. 4156 that contains a so-called bridge fund of $50 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq.

The House-passed bill provides for the President, within 30 days after enactment, to commence a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq and for the transition of those forces to specific missions: (1) protecting U. S. diplomatic facilities, U.S. forces, American citizens; (2) conducting limited training, equipping and providing logistical and intelligence support to Iraqi Security Forces; and (3) engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against Al-Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. It sets a goal for the completion of the transition would be December 15, 2008.

Some argue that we should not identify the new more limited missions or commit to transition to them. The President told the American people of September 13 that we will transition to a new phase starting in December and that “As this transition in mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.” Does that sound familiar? Well, it’s like the House passed language before us.

It’s the goal of completing the transition that he objects to - although it’s a goal and not binding. Setting a goal may be too much for he who is unwilling to set a goal - but just don’t misrepresent it as a fixed timetable when it is stated as a goal.

From all accounts, the surge has already produced militarily progress - sectarian violence in most regions of Iraq, particularly Baghdad, is down.

The problem is that, while the surge has at this point seen militarily progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose as announced by President Bush last January, when he stated that its purpose was to give the Iraqi government “the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.” The President also said that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.” Well we haven’t. The President statement that he “will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced” is so much hollow rhetoric. Those benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law; approving a de-Baathification law; completing the work of a Constitutional Review Committee; and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made one and a half years ago, which were to have been completed by January 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided. As a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than they were at the start of the surge. The Iraqi political leadership’s response to the breathing space provided by the surge has been nothing less than abysmal.

One year ago this month, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki himself: "The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi] politicians." Secretary of Defense Gates agreed with that assessment in December of last year. President Bush agreed in January. Petraeus agreed in September. If everyone agrees that this is a political crisis, why does the administration keep focusing on military solutions?

General Odierno, according to yesterday’s Washington Post, described the breathing space as a window of opportunity, which may close at any time. Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this window of opportunity is of course their decision. We can’t make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country.

But how long U.S. forces remain deployed to Iraq, and with what missions, and how long U.S. forces continue to fight the insurgency instead of the Iraqi army taking over that fight, and how long we continue to subject our brave and valiant servicemen and women to the risk of death and serious injury - those decisions are in our hands.

Secretary Gates has said that pressure on the Iraqi political leaders is useful. President Bush has acknowledged as much. How can Congress act to put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? By setting a goal for the transition of the missions of U.S. forces in Iraq to the more supporting and less direct role. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in their December 2006 report essentially called for a transition of the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq very much like that called for in this bill - only they called for it to take place by the first quarter of 2008.

We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given them. Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice.

The bill we will hopefully vote for sets a goal for completion of a transition to missions the President has said were going to transition to. I wish it were binding but setting a timetable as a goal is better than silence which leaves in place the open-endedness of our current presence.

It is that open-ended commitment which continues to create in the minds of the Iraqi political leaders the false impression that their future is in our hands instead of theirs.

We should vote for cloture on the House passed bill and be allowed to vote on its substance.

Source: Senator Carl Levin