Senator Ted Kennedy Questions Secretary Gates

United States Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing

February 6, 2008 -- (As Prepared for Delivery)

I join in welcoming Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to our Committee today.

The Administration is rapidly moving forward on negotiations to sign a permanent, long-term agreement with the Iraqis on the role of the U.S. military in future operations in Iraq. An agreement is expected to be concluded by mid-July.

I believe these negotiations move America in the wrong direction. America has given the Iraqi people nearly five years of American blood and treasure. It’s wrong at this time to lock our nation permanently into the endless quagmire that the Iraq war has become. It’s time for America to change our mission and begin to bring our troops home.

The Administration is clearly attempting to downplay the significance of the agreement being negotiated. But the President has given U.S. negotiators sweeping authority to negotiate an agreement that would require our troops to defend Iraq well into the future if it is attacked and that could well be an attempt to bind the next President, without the approval of Congress.

The stakes are enormously high. Congress must have the opportunity to approve or disapprove any security commitment, agreement, assurance, pledge or guarantee – regardless of what it is called –that affects our troops or our national security. Period.

Security Commitment and a Treaty

The document signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki outlining the scope of the negotiations clearly states that “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression” can be negotiated.

There is nothing ambiguous about a security commitment. It would obligate the United States to defend Iraq if it is attacked. Our government currently has only seven such solemn commitments and these were made with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate in a treaty, as required by the Constitution.

The Iraqi Foreign Minister is describing the agreement as a treaty. On January 15, in a press conference with Secretary Rice, he said, “our leaders have agreed to set a group of principles for the long-term treaty…”.

The Iraqi Parliament is demanding to ratify the final agreement, and the Iraqi Government has said it will submit any US-Iraq pact to the Parliament for ratification.

However, General Lute, the Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, said in November “that Congressional input is not forseen. He said, “We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.”

In September, you said that the Congress “has to be involved” in this issue, but you stopped short of saying the final pact should be submitted to Congress.

Why won’t the Administration commit to submitting the final pact to the Congress for its approval? With the country so deeply divided on the war and our future course in Iraq, why do you want to bypass Congress and public opinion in this country? General Lute said on November 26th that everything is on the negotiating table – “what U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required, are bases required, which partners will join them…all these things are on the negotiating table.”

Extension of the Existing UN Resolution

The existing authority under international law for our military presence in Iraq came from the U.N., and it was extended in December 2007 through the end of 2008.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to seek a short term extension from the U.N., if necessary, to enable the next Administration to decide what form our commitment should take, if any?

Source: Senator Ted Kennedy

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •