In June, Kerry made the case for withdrawing from Iraq to the Senate

[ProSense]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for a really excellent summary and a terrific statement about what this is about and what is at stake. I thank him also for in the short time he has been here he has really proven to be indispensable for a number of different debates we have had and for his work in the last few days on no amnesty for those who have killed Americans. It had a major impact on our policy. We thank him so much for that contribution.

Mr. President, I think one of the important things that the Senator from New Jersey just said is let us remember what this amendment is really about.

I have sat here and listened to this nondebate for a little while. When Senators used to be able to question each other, we used to be able to have a dialog on the floor. It seems to me that is the best way to test each other's thinking.

What is interesting to me is that a number of Senators came to the floor to make these grand pronouncements about our country, about war on terror, about our troops. And none of us in the U.S. Senate would disagree that our troops are the best troops in the world and that they have made an extraordinary sacrifice. None of us would disagree. We are a great country and a great democracy. None of us disagree that we don't need to fight against terrorists to win the war on terror. That is not the issue.

A lot of other people are getting tired of that sort of game, of trying to characterize things as they aren't.

The Senator from South Dakota said that we shouldn't telegraph to the enemy and to the terrorists. Of course, we shouldn't telegraph to the enemy and terrorists. What are we telegraphing? We are there. They know it. They are killing our soldiers to some degree but lesser than the insurgency today.

The point that people need to really focus on is the fact that what has happened in Iraq is not what was originally billed. This is the third war. It is a different war from the war we went into.

The war that the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, described was the war against Saddam Hussein as an enforcement mechanism of weapons of mass destruction. And they weren't there. There is a whole history of that being about a war of choice as opposed to a war of necessity.

That then transitioned because Zarqawi and company and a bunch of foreigners were attracted by the fact that we were there. We made a great target. So they started to use that target. And, indeed, it became a haven for some terrorists.

But every single analyst who I have talked to--and I know the chairman knows this--says that there are about 1,000 or less of the foreign terrorists in Iraq. Ninety-eight percent of what is happening in Iraq today is Iraqi on Iraqi.

When they come to the floor and say to us we are going to telegraph something to the terrorists, who are we telegraphing something to? The Shias who hate Sunnis, the Sunnis who hate Shias who are killing each other?

What are our troops supposed to be about? Drive down the street and find an IED and get blown up? Wait for a suicide bomber to come into an outpost and kill them?

The bottom line is that either the Iraqis are going to resolve the differences between Iraqis or we are going to see people dying for a long, long time.

When we talk about the war on terror, let's talk about the real war on terror which never was in Iraq. Yes, it is now part of the war on terror. It has been made part of the war on terror because foreign terrorists have been attracted there because the American target is there and because they know they can feed into the sectarian violence and use it against us.

What is smart if you are going to try to deal with that? How do you win? Do you think I want to win any less than the Senator from Alabama or the Senator from Georgia? I believe in winning. I believe in winning for America and I believe in winning for our troops, and I don't think this is a winning strategy. It is not a winning strategy in Iraq, and it is not a winning strategy in the war on terror.

All you have to do is look at al-Qaida and what they are doing in 60 to 80 countries around the world. Look at what happened in Somalia the other day? Are we dealing with that? Are we dealing with Darfur? Are we dealing with North Korea? It took us until this year to sit down with our own allies, Great Britain, Germany and France, and actually try to do the diplomatic work of dealing with Iran.

For 3 1/5 years we sat on the sidelines and allowed Iran to become more of a problem.

Is that winning the war on terror?

What about the 60 percent of the kids in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan and other countries that are under the age of 25, 50 percent under the age of 18, 40 percent under the age of 14, and the unemployed and uneducated and unemployable? They are going to go down to madrasas and learn how to hate people while the United States remains a big, fat target in the Middle East.

Ask our foreign policy experts. I don't know whether it was Foreign Affairs or another magazine, but one of them did that just the other day.

Eighty-seven percent of the people, when asked, said we are less safe today in the war on terror than we were; 87 percent of the experts of the United States, including people like General Brent Scowcroft and others who I know the chairman has great respect for.

This is not a question of whether we want to beat terrorists. This is a question of whether we are doing it the right way and whether we know how to do this right.

Show me in this resolution, in this amendment, where it says all troops out in 1 year. It doesn't. A lot of people are upset at that. They think it ought to, but it doesn't. Show me where it says we are finished altogether, and we are walking away from Iraq. It does not say it.

It says we are going to leave sufficient people there to finish the training, to go after al-Qaida, over the horizon to have the capacity to be able to protect our interests in the region, and it says we will protect American facilities.

This is not cut and run. This is a smart way to win the war on terror. Our own generals--and I know the chairman has heard it; I know others have heard it--know that they believe our presence is contributing to the problems. It contributes to the sense of occupation. It contributes to the--whether it is Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay or Haditha, those all contribute to the recruitment of terrorists against the United States.

Our intelligence people will tell every Member of the Senate that currently there are al-Qaida-trained operatives leaving Iraq, trained in munitions, trained in IEDs, going to Europe and elsewhere in order to wreak the havoc of the future.

We are not doing the job. We are not doing the job correctly. Let's have a real debate, not a false debate, about something this resolution is not.

Moreover, in listening to my colleagues, one of them talked about what his vote meant and the vote he casts to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I remember what my vote was. I remember what I said in the Senate when I voted. I voted reluctantly based on what Colin Powell, Secretary of State, and others said they were going to do: Exhaust the remedies of inspections at the United Nations, not cut them short; go to war as a last resort, not as a rush; do the adequate planning, not ignore the State Department plan for what you do to win the peace.

I hear colleagues come to the Senate and say: We shouldn't tell this administration what to do. Their record demands that we tell them what to do. Congress helped get us into this mess, and Congress ought to help get us out of it. We are partly responsible.

I have heard my colleagues talk about troops they talk to. We all talk to troops. We have all talked to families. I will be honest about it, I hear both things. I hear troops whose families have said to me: Make sure my son or daughter did not die in vain. I agree with what the Senator from Wisconsin said earlier about that. I think anyone who serves their country at the call of the Nation never dies in vain.

I have heard troops who have come back and said to me: We are making progress. We ought to be doing more of this, more of that, more of the PRTs, more of a number of different other projects. But I have also met a lot of troops who are coming back who believe they do not know what the mission is; they think the war is wrong and they think a lot of the troops just want to come home. That is where they are. It is a mixture.

Our question, our judgment, is to try to see through that, try to be intelligent and genuine in trying to work out what is the best policy. I have come to the conclusion that the reason for setting a date--I was not there 2 years ago. Why wasn't I there 2 years ago? Because 2 years ago we didn't have all the elections, we did not have a referendum, we did not have the Constitution, we did not have an elected government, we had not made some of the progress, and we had not transitioned to a civil sectarian struggle. We then still saw things as fundamentally foreign jihadists. Because of all the mistakes that have been made, that transition is now a matter of history.

I believe deeply, based on what I am hearing from military personnel, based on what I see personally, and based on my own experience where I fought with foreigners in another country, where we were trying to stand them up and get them to go out and do the job, that as long as we are there and prepared to do the job for them, they won't do it adequately. You have to push people out into that kind of situation.

The bottom line, can we do it the way we are muddling along? Possibly. I heard a couple of colleagues come to the Senate and say there were some who have decided that this is lost and we just have to go. I haven't. I believe there are ways, hopefully, to pull something together that has a sufficiently stable government that we can go forward to the other issues of the Middle East.

I will tell you this, and this I know for certain: If we make this successful muddling along, as we are doing now, it is going to cost us more lives, more limbs, and more dollars than if we did what is in this plan. That I know to a certainty. I also know to a certainty that unless we are prepared to do the diplomacy necessary, we cannot resolve the fundamental underpinnings of this insurgency.

I talked to General Zinni the other day to ask his advice. He doesn't agree with me setting a date, so I will be upfront about that, but he certainly cited unbelievable dismay at the lack of adequacy of consultation in the region, at the lack of effort to put together a regional security arrangement, at the lack of diplomacy that is trying to resolve the fundamental differences and work bilaterally in an intensive way to pull people to the table to try to deal with this.

One thing I know, when you have a 20-percent minority Sunni population who for 200 years has run the country and now suddenly they are not, but some of them are still committed to doing it, if you do not give them a sufficient stake, you are not going to resolve this problem. And, at the same time, you have the Shias who are 60 percent of the population who for 200 years have been oppressed by this 20 percent minority, and they won at the ballot box because we gave them at the ballot box the opportunity to have power, and they want to hold on to it. That is natural.

But if they want to go the full distance of what they want to do, we have a serious long-term problem. That is what we are supposed to resolve in the next few months.

The Senator from Delaware is absolutely correct in his description of the tensions that have to be resolved. I disagree with the Senator with respect to the question of whether there is a plan. This amendment is a plan. It is a plan for standing up the Iraqis. It is a plan for creating accountability. It is a plan for shifting responsibility to the Iraqi Government to bolster their sovereignty and empower the Government in the eyes of the Iraqi people. It is a plan for how to begin to redeploy troops to protect our interests in the region at the same time as you stand up their military. And, most importantly, it is a plan for

what you do with the Arab League, with the Secretary General of the United Nations, with the neighbors and with the factions in Iraq in order to resolve the fundamental differences. It specifically requires reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds and ensures equitable distribution of oil, strengthens the internal security, disbans militias, revives reconstruction efforts, fulfills related international economic aid commitments, secures Iraq's borders, and provides for a sustainable Federalist structure in Iraq.

That is a plan. And the only way to arrive at any plan, whether it is the Senator from Delaware or anyone else, is to pull the parties together and do the diplomacy necessary. Never in the 21 years I have been here have I seen as significant an issue of war and peace, life and death, as significant an absence of fundamental diplomacy as there is here. Never. It does not come close to the efforts of other generations.

There is 200 years of American history being turned topsy-turvy. It is hurting us on the war on terror. When September 11 happened, the whole world was with us--the whole world. Newspaper headlines said: We are all Americans now. That was the atmosphere after September 11. And the whole world understood why we had to go to Afghanistan. And every single one of us voted for that, understood it, and supported it.

But Iraq is different. Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan at the time, nothing to do with September 11, and everyone knows it.

So why are we here talking about requiring this administration to do something? Why don't you think about the history. When they could have demanded and relied on accurate information instead of manipulated intelligence, they made a willful choice not to do that. They were wrong. Instead, they sacrificed American credibility at home and abroad. The result of that is the ``We are all Americans now'' was squandered. It disappeared.

Ask any American citizen who travels abroad now how comfortable they feel as they travel. Ask any American businessman what happens to them when they travel in other parts of the world.

When this administration could have given the inspectors additional time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have taken time to exhaust the patience of our own allies and hold them accountable to the U.N. resolutions, instead they just broke off and said, OK, you go your way, we will go ours, and they exposed America to greater cost and greater sacrifice.

When they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson's report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they attacked him and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq.

But the mistakes were not limited to that decision to invade. They mounted, one upon the other. When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. When they could have listened to Larry Lindsey and others who said it is going to cost $200 billion, they not only chose not to listen, they fired him. They were wrong.

When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush, Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and built a genuine world coalition, they chose not to. And they were wrong.

When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong.

When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein's ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong.

When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Secretary Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders and said, ``Baghdad was safer than Washington, DC,'' and he chose not to act, he was wrong.

When the administration could have kept an Iraqi Army selectively intact, they chose not to. And they were wrong.

When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, guess what. They chose not to. And they were wrong, and we are paying the price today.

They could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on-the-ground peacekeepers and reconstruction. Guess what. In their arrogance about doing it alone, they chose not to, and so we are alone.

They were wrong.

When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the insurgency was in its last throes, and he repeated that again just a few days ago. He was wrong.

Now, after all these mistakes, the administration likes to accuse anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. Well, Mr. President, we are in trouble today because of the policy of cut-and-run--cutting and running from common sense, cutting and running from history, cutting and running from cultural realities, cutting and running from the truth, cutting and running from the best advice of our military. And we are paying a huge price for that today.

Mr. President, every single one of us is determined to win the war on terror. But we have to ask ourselves some tough questions about where we find ourselves today. I wonder, as we are told by a lot of people that--I think the President, just yesterday or the day before, said it was important to have Members of the U.S. Congress who will not wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.

I think the President of the United States ought to stop acting as ``Campaigner in Chief'' and start being Commander in Chief and start bringing the Congress together and the Nation together around a real policy.

I don't know anybody waving a white flag. We are debating whether or not there is a better way to win the war on terror.

I respectfully say to my colleagues, if we don't begin to pay attention, instead of over $2 billion every couple of days--every 2 days, I think; it is about $8 billion a week; 8 billion bucks a week--instead of $8 billion a week going to Iraq, we could be investing and working on a greater Middle Eastern initiative, working on economic development, working on schools, working on children's issues, working on a future with respect to future terrorists.

The fact is, we are not going to succeed at this if all we do is go out there and alienate people. I have heard from soldiers over the last weekend. I was with three medics who have came back, and they are all against the war, those three medics. They are out there in America right now talking to people about why they are against the war. They said: When you go into a house at night, and you are holding guns, and you are scaring people in that house, and you leave that house, they don't like you. You are not winning their hearts and minds.

I cannot tell you how familiar that is to the same experience we saw and went through years ago in hamlets throughout Southeast Asia. It just does not work the way they are doing it.

We could ask the question, legitimately: How many lives have been lost because of the ineptitude of this strategy? How many lives have been lost? And how many people have been maimed and wounded because we did not provide the body armor to our troops? You want to talk about patriotism? How many troops were killed or wounded by the shells and the weapons that came from the ammo dumps that we were not smart enough to protect? How many lives have been lost and how many limbs have been amputated because there were not enough troops in the beginning in order to provide people with the support and safety and the control of the country? How much bigger and more dangerous is al-Qaida today because we outsourced the job of capturing him at Tora Bora to Afghans instead of using the First Marines or the 10th Mountain Division or even the SEALs who were there?

We are where we are today in this war on terror because of misjudgments. And I believe those misjudgments continue.

How many times have we heard that we are turning the corner or that this is a moment of turning the corner, and yet momentum was lost? Momentum was lost after the elections. Momentum was lost after the passage of the Constitution. Momentum was lost in the last months while we waited and waited and waited for Iraqi politicians to stop playing around and form a government.

I do not think our soldiers deserve that interim period, personally. And the question now is, how do you best protect our troops? How do you best secure our objectives? How do you best deal with the problem of an Iraq where Iraqis need to defend their own rights and interests?

Americans cannot do it for them. Yes, we can provide backup. Yes, we can provide insurance against a total implosion. Yes, we can provide security with respect to the efforts to go after al-Qaida. And our amendment contemplates all of that. But it also contemplates a transition based on experience.

The Iraqis needed a deadline for the transfer of authority to the Provisional Government. The Iraqis needed a deadline for the Constitution. They needed a deadline for their elections. They needed a deadline for their own formation of a government. They even have a self-imposed deadline for the transition of the Constitution in these

next months.

Why then, when the Iraqis themselves are saying they can take over their security, when the Iraqi Government itself says withdrawing American troops would be helpful, would we not coordinate with the Iraqi Government a drawdown that makes it clear that we are standing them up?

Now, speaking of the stand-up, I thought the policy of our Government--how many times have we heard it from the President: ``As they stand up, we will stand down.'' He announced that in a speech to the American people. He has announced it in press conferences.

Well, here we are. In the trips I made to Iraq, General Petraeus, and his now successor, showed us charts that indicated 272,000 was the goal to train and equip. We are now at 264,600. That is as of June 14, 2006. The goal was 272,000.

Now, I think they moved the goal out to 325,000. But notwithstanding, how many have stood down? If the goal is to stand down as they stand up, and we have stood up 264,000--incidentally, in addition to the 264,000, there are 144,000 facilities protection service personnel working in 27 ministries. So you have a total of almost 400,000 Iraqis trained and equipped. And where is the stand-down?

I believe it is essential to accelerate this transition. That is the only way to reduce the targeting of our troops. It is the only way to invest other countries in the reality that the United States will not always be there, and they need to take a stake in their own region.

Right now, because of the way they feel about this administration, and because we are simply there ``staying the course,'' they have no compulsion whatsoever to come to the table. The only way you are going to bring them to the table, in my judgment, is to change that equation.

So we have a very significant, broad-based plan for an international diplomatic effort, beginning with bilateral, and working up, ultimately, through the bilateral to a summit that we know can be successful. That is the way in which we will invest in a new security arrangement for the region and protect the United States of America's long-term interests more effectively.

Mr. President, I see that another colleague has come and would like to speak now. I just close by saying that----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator closes, I would like to say a word or two with him.

Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted to do that.

Mr. WARNER. You finish your closing and I will wait.

Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to do so. I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, I heard the Senator from South Dakota say that there are occasions when a generation faces a struggle between good and evil. I agree with that. There is good and there is evil in this world. And what radical fascist extremists are doing in the name of religion is evil. I know as well as anybody here in the Senate that we have to stand up to that. But we have to stand up to it in the best traditions and values of our country. We have to stand up to it in a way that brings people to our side and does not alienate them.

It is incomprehensible to me that after these several years, where we started with ``we are all Americans'' post-9/11, and the world was at our side, that we have now seen radical, extreme terrorists isolate the United States of America in that particular part of the world. That is a failure of policy. And it is a failure that makes the United States of America less secure, not more.

Some people have said: Well, if you tell the terrorists that we are leaving in a few days--whatever period of time--I remind them, we are not leaving altogether. We are going to leave our special forces personnel who are capable of taking out the terrorists.

But the bottom line is that they are not waiting for anything today. We just lost two troops in the most brutal, horrible manner. They are not waiting now. And the fact is that unless we get Iraqis to resolve those issues I talked about, this will continue or even get worse.

So ignoring all the warnings of history itself, in a moment of total ideological excess, this administration has managed to make the ancient cradle of civilization look a lot like Vietnam.

I think there is a path forward. I think there is a better way to secure our interests. There is a better way to fight the war on terror. There is a better way to stand up to Iraq. There is a better way to respect their sovereignty. There is a better way to protect our troops.

I hope the U.S. Senate will look carefully at that.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I would say this has been a good debate. Say what you want. I listened very carefully to what you said, and there are certain elements with which I agree with you. You and I have known each other a long time. I have great respect for your military career, the accomplishments you have had. I think you often shared that with regard to my modest career.

But I must say, I kind of bit my tongue here a few

minutes ago when you said in our old days we used to have a colloquy and talked. I arrived on the floor of this Senate at around 9:30, when I first got here. It is exactly 12 hours now that I have been on this floor. And the first thing I said--and I don't want to personalize this--to the other side of the aisle was: Now, let's try to engage in a colloquy and exchange some views. I did say that since we were under a time constraint my questions would be charged to me, the replies from the other side charged to your side. It seemed to me fair enough. We had 5 hours before us at that time. But I have to tell you, I was flatly turned down.

So now, after 12 hours and your invitation to enter into a colloquy, I say to my good friend, you can ask me any question you wish. And I might start off with a question or two for you.

Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted.

Mr. President, let me just say to the distinguished chairman, I don't have a question for him because he has not said anything outrageous.

Mr. WARNER. Beg your pardon?

Mr. KERRY. I said, the Senator from Virginia has not said anything outrageous that begs a question at this point.

But I will say this: I do understand the difficulties that the manager was under.

Mr. WARNER. Well, that is history. We are here now. Why don't we make the best of it?

Mr. KERRY. I know. But he had wanted more than 5 hours, as you know. We are where we are.

Mr. WARNER. We are here now.

Mr. KERRY. And I think he had more speakers than he was able to fit in.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I must say, I shared that on this side, but I was willing to take the heat.

Mr. KERRY. But I would be delighted to answer any questions.

Mr. WARNER. All right. We have the opportunity, Senator. Is there anything you wish to ask of me? And I will ask a few of you.

Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator not agree with me that the fundamental crisis of Iraq today is not particularly with Zarqawi having been killed and the treasure-trove of information we found--which, incidentally, happened because Iraqis gave Iraqis information and F-16s from outside came in and took him out. So there was an Iraqi component of that, which can still function with the setup that we are setting forward. But wouldn't the Senator agree, Mr. President, that the fundamental problem today is that 98 percent of the insurgency is Shia-Sunni, Sunni-Shia sectarian violence, militias within the military?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't know what that fraction is. But in discussions with senior military, clearly, they have said the insurgents, the foreign invaders, the others who have come in have dropped in terms of--somewhat--numbers of incidents. And, indeed, the sectarian violence--Sunni versus Shia, Kurds to some extent--has grown enormously. So I cannot qualify it. But the Senator is correct.

And that leads me to my first question, because----

Mr. KERRY. Can I just finish the question?

Would the Senator then not agree that there are serious limits on what our troops can do to resolve sectarian violence?

Mr. WARNER. Well, that remains to be seen. They are, right now, for example, in Baghdad, fighting side by side. A very significant number of Iraqi troops, together with the components of our troops, are trying to bring about a greater measure of stability and security in the very capital of this country.

I think we should make known to those following the debate and those who listened to the debate with Senator Levin, Senator Levin's amendment was a sense of the Congress. The amendment of our colleague from Massachusetts very explicitly becomes law,

if it were adopted and eventually went into the bill and the bill survived the conference.

The point I wish to make is, you are directing the President. For example, it says: The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, this year, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. So this is law. As we used to say in the old days, we are shooting real bullets with this one, not just a sense of the Congress.

Throughout the debate, not only this one in the past day or two on this bill, but we have always, certainly, on this side, resisted timetables. You talk about putting together a summit. That is on page 2, section (b), Iraq Summit: The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each of the countries bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--I think that is important to have NATO in there--representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues--that is a very important point you make, disbanding the militias--another very important point, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

Those are all important subjects, commendable goals. But first let's go back. It has taken the Iraqis 18 months since the first election in early 2005, through three elections, through the formation of the first permanent government. And the first permanent government is just, as you and I as old sailors would say, getting its sea legs. You start a conference like this--and I think it is a good idea--but the first question that is going to be asked is, can we proceed to achieve any of these goals if we have overhanging this the redeployment of our forces by July 1, 2007?

Senator, that is a timetable. That is a concept which I and I think the majority in this Chamber have continuously rejected. How could you ask the other nations of the world to come in and begin to put their credit on the line, their dollars on the line, if you have this timetable to pull out the very foundation that is supporting such progress as has been achieved in the 18 months of getting the first government up and testing their sea legs?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a wonderful question and a very appropriate one. I really appreciate it. It gives me a chance to talk about the viability of this. First of all, may I remind the distinguished chairman what I just said a moment ago. We are at 264,000. We have 144,000 more. That is 400,000 people prepared to go. They are in the streets now. We have 1 year to continue to work with them. Prime Minister Maliki has said himself that by the end of this year, in 16 out of 18 provinces they will be able to take over security. This is contemplated within the framework that the Prime Minister himself has adopted. This respects their sovereignty. It respects their capacity.

Secondly, in my conversations with leaders in the region, as recently as this year, ranging from the President of Egypt to the King of Jordan and others, what I gleaned from those conversations is, they are waiting for a series of kind of diplomatic and business conference efforts that do get them invested and invest the whole region in an understanding that the United States is going to be leaving, and they need to begin to accept that reality.

The longer we stay, the longer we delay their readiness and their need--let alone willingness--to come to the table. I respectfully suggest that it is within the framework of a year.

We did the Dayton Accords in less time. Milosevic did not want to come to the table. President Clinton persuaded Yeltsin to create a pressure point that brought people there. In effect, we made things happen against people's will by creating the pressure. This is the same kind of situation.

I say respectfully to the Senator, we have a far better chance of spending less money, losing less lives and being more effective in the war on terror if we pursue this than if we simply do what we are doing today.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it might be the case, but I would be willing to make a modest wager with you that if you got this conference under way, the first thing that they would ask would be to suspend this timetable of July 1, 2007.

Mr. KERRY. And if that were the case, and they were prepared to come to the table to resolve these issues and be part of this process, then the President could come back to us and we would respond accordingly. We are not stupid. We want to act in the best interest of our country. The question is, how do you begin to push people to a place where they realize they have to confront these realities?

Secondly, the Senator's question makes a presumption that I just fundamentally disagree with and don't see in this amendment. That is if we pull out the foundation, I think the Senator said, we specifically say we arrive at a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi forces.

I have asked the Senator from Virginia, what are we there for? What are we there to do? We are there to fight al-Qaida. We allow for that. We are there to stand up Iraqis for themselves. We allow that. And we are certainly there to protect American facilities. So what is it that is absent from here that would somehow pull out the foundation from anything?

Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, I cannot see, for example, the governments of each country bordering Iraq suddenly beginning to rush in if they feel that a civil war could start. The pulling out of the troops, the setting of a timetable will be a signal to all of the various factions. I will concede it is the Shia against the Sunnis that is the major faction. Wait them out. Let's let the troops flow out and then we will topple this government with a civil war.

It seems to me, I say to my colleague, you cannot expect these nations that border Iraq, the Arab League, I can't see that they would step up and say, we are willing to do everything. But wait a minute, coalition forces----

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to the Senator, I know he doesn't want American troops in the middle of a civil war. I know he doesn't think that that is why we sent our troops there.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share that concern, but----

Mr. KERRY. That is where they are.

Mr. WARNER. It is the presence of our troops today that is probably holding it back from becoming a civil war.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I say respectfully, we will continue to be able to do that. Over the course of the next year, with over-the-horizon capacity and with our ability to move in an emergency, we are not going away. We have plenty of troops in Kuwait. We could have plenty of troops over the horizon. That is not going to fall apart. The problem is that the tasks that the Senator is referring to, each of them are civilian tasks. They are political tasks. You don't need 138,000 American troops as targets to complete those tasks when you have 400,000 Iraqis allegedly trained and equipped and prepared to defend their country.

Let me ask the Senator: Did Iraq or did it not fight Iran for 10 years within the last 25 years?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I remember well that conflict because I was then on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. KERRY. And they lost a million people fighting for almost 10 years for their country. These are the same people. Four years later we are still driving trucks down the street and our guys are taking IEDs. Are you telling me that they don't have people who can drive a truck? They don't have people to go out on patrol? Why aren't our people garrisoned and being held in reserve in case there is an implosion? What are we doing with our troops being the ones that have to go out? I don't get it. I believe there is a better way to wage this effort. That is what this amendment contemplates.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we just disagree. I feel this government hasn't

been given a chance. It has only been 6 weeks. It took 18 months to get to where they are today. If we were to enact this into law, presumably the authorization bill would be signed by the President--there is a question whether if this is in there, he would sign it--this would go into law in a matter of a few months. And then suddenly to try and call on the rest of the world--and by the way, I certainly did not see the European Union trying to help form the coalition forces. Of each permanent member of the Security Council, the only one, Great Britain, stepped forward. I don't see those countries suddenly coming in and making the types of commitments that this paragraph requires, if we are going to pull out the very stability that is holding together this fragile government and preventing a civil war today.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a legitimate question and it deserves, obviously, an answer.

Those countries, many of them, are reluctant to become engaged with the United States as long as they see us on the status quo path, because they see the same series of mistakes that I have just cited. If you talk to them, they will tell you, they don't have confidence that this administration is going to get it right or move in the right direction. That is why I believe you have to come in and lay out a path.

In my judgment, historically, most Presidents would not want the Congress telling them to do this. If I were President, I wouldn't want them telling me to do this. But at the same time, I would hope that I had consulted with Congress and not been as stubborn and not made the series of mistakes they have so that you wind up having alienated the very people you need to solve the problem. If you don't have some kind of regional security arrangement, the situation with Iran will grow more serious.

Iran loves the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq. This just plays perfect for Iran. And Iran has a much stronger lever over us with respect to its current nuclear path because they know they could wreak havoc with what is happening on the ground in Iraq, and that restricts our choices and options.

We will be stronger in counterproliferation efforts, we will be stronger in our efforts against terrorism in the region, and we will be able to create the credibility to bring these other countries to the table, which they are not willing to do today, if we make this kind of transition. If they understand that we are acknowledging that our presence is a problem, they have to step up because they don't want regional chaos. I believe that is exactly what helps us get it done. That is what changes the dynamics.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have covered this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I would draw your attention to the clause where you say consultation with the Congress is required. Here we are, basically on the eve of the August recess which starts the first week in August. We come back here as a Congress for maybe 30 days or 5 weeks in September. Then leave again for elections. You say:

The President shall consult with the Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required .....

You know, we know how this institution works. We have been here for two decades apiece. I say, if the President were to devise a redeployment schedule to meet 2007, when do you think the Congress might swing into action and take such responsibility, as implied here, through the consultation process? I presume Congress could take an action to stop it. You are talking about July 1, and I don't see the Congress acting on such a proposal in a timely manner.

Mr. KERRY. Well, if that is all that gets in the way of this, Mr. President, I am confident we can find expediting language or other language that would resolve it.

But I will tell you, Congress is going to be dealing with this issue next year at this time if we don't change this policy. Like it or not, we are going to be here debating it one way or the other.

Mr. WARNER. That may be true, but I will ask another question. Drop down to paragraph 3, ``maintenance of over-the-horizon troop presence.'' ``The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.''

Where would those troops, in all likelihood, be put?

Mr. KERRY. Most likely in Kuwait, Qatar, the Gulf States, if you work out a security arrangement.

Mr. WARNER. That would require a substantial amount of installations to be constructed.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we already have--as the Senator knows, we have been there and there are a number of pretty substantial facilities already in Kuwait, and there are others regionally, in my judgment; and that is the purpose of this arrangement, to prepare to work on an accommodation, providing it was in the context of a larger security arrangement. What I have learned--and again, we all talk to people and try to learn as much as we can.

General Zinni was saying to me the other day that he believes the Gulf States are particularly interested in some kind of a regional security arrangement because they are threatened by the instability and by the questions about Iran and the challenge to the oilfields and so forth. That is precisely the kind of issue that has to be arrived at, initially bilaterally and ultimately through this international conference.

I know the Senator was willing to bet something a little while ago. I am not sure we should do that in the Senate, but I would certainly bet my reputation that, one way or the other, we are going to be ultimately having to engage in this kind of multilateral diplomacy to resolve these issues. The sooner we get about it, the better we will be in fighting this war on terror.

Mr. WARNER. I caution my colleague because that is saying to this new Iraqi Government that you are going to fail.

Mr. KERRY. No, sir. About the regional security, I said we will need ultimately to deal with the question of Iran, the oilfields, the instability in the region. I think the greater Middle East is going to require this kind of focus and attention one way or the other.

As I said during the debate a moment ago, I am not somebody who suggests that we cannot make this still work out somehow. I am not in that school. But I do know that on the current path, it is going to cost more lives, more money, and it is going to cost us prolonged loss of relationship and reputation within the region and is going to set us back in terms of other interests we have. This can be done more effectively, and that is what I am here to argue for. How do we protect our security interests more effectively? How do we advance our safety and security in the world? How do we win the war on terror more effectively and stand Iraq up more effectively? I believe setting the date accomplishes all of those things.

Mr. WARNER. You have to admit that July 1, 2007, is a timetable; am I not correct?

Mr. KERRY. Yes, for the beginning of the transition. But as it makes very clear, if you get to 2 months before the end, or 3 months, and you can see the progress being made, and there is another month or so that a certain number of troops need to be stood up, or whatever, we allow that--the ability of the President to make that determination. If it is done in the best traditions of the Congress, it will be done with the consultation of the various committees and the Congress itself. And then you would have the kind of unity in the pursuit of this policy that is absent today or we would not have had this debate for the last several days. I know the chairman believes this----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is operating on a premise that if this became law and the President issued a timetable, suddenly the level of violence would begin to be lowered considerably.

Mr. KERRY. No, sir, I am not making that presumption, Mr. President. I am saying that unless you resolve the fundamental political tension--the Shia don't have oil revenues. They want a strong Iraq with a central government. The Shia are well taken care of. The Kurds are happy in the north; they want to be left alone. They have

oil revenues. So you have Kirkut as a major issue you have to resolve ultimately. But you have this fundamental tension between whether you are going

to have this federal loose-knit structure which the Shia want, with certain individuals with strong designs on future political power in that region, or whether you are going to have a manageable entity. That is why the former counsel for Foreign Relations and Senator Biden and others have joined in this idea of partition. The only way you are going to get there--and I don't think it is a particularly viable option--is through this kind of international conference. If you don't ultimately have a resolution by the parties politically, you are going to have a civil war. They have a few months under their own Constitution to try to resolve these things. That is going to be unavoidable.

I am not suggesting that the violence is going to suddenly vanish. The question is, How are you ultimately going to take away the rationale for the folks who are engaging in it? As I said, there are five different groups, and we are not dealing very effectively with it. You have criminal activity, you have Baathists, you have insurgents, Iraqi insurgents, and you have al-Qaida, and you have each of them that requires a different approach. Our military is not the answer to any of them, except al-Qaida. Al-Qaida, we can continue to prosecute with unit 145 operations and other things, and we can make that happen.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if you say the violence is not going to stop if this became law, if this becomes law, we have to make a movement in reduction in 2006. That is in there. There has to be a commencement. You would not wait and send out a platoon on Christmas Eve. You mean a significant drawdown, leaving only 6 months in the following year to get the bulk of the forces out. And if we start moving those troops, I tell you that will engender a higher level of violence and lead possibly to a civil war.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree. We have a civil war today, to begin with. We have a civil war today. People are being killed in the dead of night, shackled in handcuffs, beheaded, found in basements; kids are being hauled out of buses every day. The number of sectarian incidents is many times what it was just months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago. Now, how are you going to resolve it?

I don't think there is any Member of the Senate who voted to send our troops to be in the middle of a civil war. Our troops are there to bolster the Government. We are there to support that Government's ability to make it on its own. How are they going to do that? By standing up these 400,000 security people. The faster they understand they have to go out and do it, the faster the violence is going to subside. Either they make it or it ``ain't'' makeable because we cannot make it for them. That is the bottom line that people have to understand.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I agree fundamentally with the premise that the Iraqi people, in the final analysis, are the ones who are going to be able to bring about their own measure of democracy and enable this Government to exercise sovereignty.

Other Senators want to participate, so I will soon yield. I know both of us have had the opportunity to serve in the military. There is nothing more painful than the loss of a brother member of the service. I don't know about

you, but it has been difficult for me today to contain my absolute outrage about what happened, Mr. President, to these two young soldiers who raised their right arms and volunteered for this service in Iraq, to have been captured and brutally mauled and executed.

You know, I would say a rough calculation is that we probably have had about a million and a quarter Americans--that is, our brave men and women in uniform and many civilians from the departments and agencies of our Government, including a number of American contractors--who have contributed to where we are today in this new Government standing up and beginning to exercise the powers of sovereignty.

I say to my good friend, given that heavy investment, the risks taken by over a million and a quarter of our citizens, to send out a signal now--and it is a timetable, Senator--that July 1, 2007, barely 12 months from now that we would probably have under your formula--I ran a calculation--you are going to leave some behind for training and some for logistics, but basically I would say the fighting forces are out. Some may be pre-positioned in other countries nearby. There is a clause in here requiring a report as to how soon they can come back to the continental limits of the United States. That is going to send a signal, and that worries me, that all these people who made these risks and contributions are going to sit back and say, right at the threshold of really the first rays of hope to get this problem solved, we send this type of signal.

What did you feel when we lost these two individuals? I know you felt it probably as badly as I did. I cannot understand why they could be saying over there that, see what we did, we beheaded two, and what did the Congress do? It passed this law that said our troops would be redeployed by July 1, 12 months from today.

Senator, timing in life is everything. The timing for this concept you have has not arrived, I say to my good friend.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are few people in the Senate for whom I have more respect and affection than the Senator from Virginia. We have known each other a long time, and we have traveled together. I am grateful to him for the respect and consideration he has shown for this debate this evening.

When I heard those two guys were captured, my heart sank because I immediately envisioned the worst. The worst happened. I thought about them throughout that time period, until they were found. I was not surprised that they were brutalized in the most horrific, disgraceful way, and may I add--and I know the Senator knows this--in ways that contravene every law of warfare. But I believe we have a better chance of honoring what they went there for and what all of our soldiers have died for, given something for, if we adopt a policy of reality.

Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I went to serve in Vietnam in 1968. There was turmoil in this country. Remember the Chicago convention, remember McCarthy, and Bobby Kennedy had been killed in June. In fact, I arrived back in Long Beach, CA, at the dock after the first deployment in the Gulf of Tonkin the night he was killed. It was the first radio words we heard. I remember that turmoil over the war. I remember Richard Nixon running for President with a secret plan for peace. I remember how people invested in the concept of peace. Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our leaders knew wasn't working.

I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right.

If you don't resolve the differences between Shia and Sunni where 98 percent of this fight is taking place, we are stuck. And I believe it is only by pushing the process, by demanding something of everybody in the region, by demanding something of the Iraqis who are in uniform that we are going to properly defend the honor of those who served. We defend it by getting it right.

And may I add, we also defend it by honoring those who come back. There is a $6 billion shortfall in current services in our VA budget. That is just unacceptable.

We have a big job to do. I look forward to working with the Senator to do it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude. The Senator from Massachusetts and I have had this conversation about that period of history before. We will have it again and again. I recall, I went to the Pentagon in February 1969 and was there for 5 years in the Navy Secretariat. As the Secretary of the

Navy, the Senator always said I was his boss. He has been very respectful about that.

I remember when his Silver Star came through our Secretariat at that time. I went back and checked for accuracy, and it was accurate, I say to the Senator. He knows that, and I know that.

I thought many times about that period, and I recall that the then-Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, came to the conclusion that we had to begin a program of Vietnamization and begin to look toward bringing our troops home. I remember that, and the rest is history.

I share those concerns. I, like the Senator from Massachusetts, every day, particularly in my responsibility as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, worry about these men and women in uniform. Like the Senator, I visit the hospitals, go to the funerals when it is appropriate for me to do so. I share that burden. I think most of our colleagues do. I happen to know that our President shares those burdens.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my friend, there is a time for everything, and I feel ever so strongly that we have to give this new government more time to try and exercise that sovereignty before we take the very dramatic steps that the Senator from Massachusetts has set forth in this amendment, which I say not as a buzzword, but there is that timetable.

I do not think the other nations will come in. I do not think we could bring to bear the resources elsewhere in the world in the timetable that is laid down here.

There is one other point that we should consider, and that is we are there with a coalition of forces. I see no mention--maybe I didn't read it carefully--but no mention of what would Great Britain think if we were to take this somewhat unilateral action as the Senator proposes? What would Poland, what would the other nations think? They don't have the measure of the troops of quantity and so forth, but they are there in spirit.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, they are drawn down. There is a huge debate in Great Britain. They are prepared to draw down. They are ready.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I admire the courage of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Senator from Massachusetts has seen it, and I have seen it. We are political figures, he and I. We understand when we see another leader. He has stood with our President and our President has stood with him, unlike any two leaders of the United States and Great Britain since really Roosevelt and Churchill. It is remarkable what those two men have done.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I can just say, again, I repeat, this plan is a plan to be successful. It is a plan to strengthen all of our efforts in the war on terror. I have been to Great Britain. I have met with the leaders there. I know there are people there who believe we can do a better job in the war on terror, and I know they know the price they are paying for standing by us at this moment.

I believe this is a better way to actually fight the war on terror than we are doing today. If you accept that premise, you approach this differently. I think a lot of other countries believe it, too. All you have to do is look at the record of what is happening with respect to countries in the region, the number of incidents, the number of terrorists, the increase of al-Qaida. You can run down the list. Al-Qaida is in 60 to 80 countries. Osama bin Laden is still running around the mountains of northwest Pakistan or Afghanistan.

The fact is, one of the reasons we saw happen what happened probably is that it is a quick statement by the folks out there that: You may have got Zarqawi, but we are still around.

The fundamental problem remains the same. The Iraqis will not tolerate foreign jihadists--jihadists, actually I have been told, is not a great way to refer to them because it actually confers more of a God-given effort to them, and they don't deserve it. They are terrorists, they are just foreign terrorists, and we ought to quit giving them jihadists. But the fact is, they are not going to survive

in Iraq if these security forces take hold and the Government stands up.

I believe, as the Senator does, that we want that Government to stand up. I think the best way to stand it up is shift the responsibility to it. And from all indications, they believe that, too. National Security Adviser al-Rubaie wrote in the Washington Post that we ought to withdraw the American troops; it will help us in the streets of Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki says they are prepared to take over.

He said: You could probably have well under 100,000 troops by the end of this year, and we are talking about a year from now.

This is reasonable beyond compare, and besides, it allows the President to make the decision of what we need to finish standing them up. A lot of people object to that, but I think it is smart. And it allows us to continue to use special forces against al-Qaida. That is exactly how we got Zarqawi.

I think this is, as I said many times--incidentally, Secretary Melvin Laird broke a 30-year silence and wrote in ``Foreign Affairs'' that we have to get our forces out of there and reduce the numbers because they are contributing to the occupation and to the insurgency. All you have to do is talk to any leader in the region and they will tell you we are working as our own worst partner by this large presence of American troops which is acting as a poster recruitment for terrorism.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will conclude. I just say if we had more time, I would want to enter into another chapter of debate with the Senator on what would be the consequences if we saw failure; if this program of his, no matter how well conceived and how conscientious, were to trigger that failure, what would be the consequence.

The fact that this country could revert to a haven for further training of al-Qaida and terrorists from all over the world----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is why we maintain over-the-horizon capacity. That is why we allow the finishing of the training of the Iraqis to stand up.

Look, whether it is the plan of the President or this plan, both of them are operating on some element of faith that hopefully the Government is going to stand up. If it doesn't, we all got a problem. What we have here is one resolution--I keep hearing people come to the floor and saying they are definitely against an indefinite presence in Iraq, but they are indefinitely against being definite about it. You can't have it both ways. Either you are going to push this process or we are locked in the current paradigm.

Does my colleague think the current paradigm is going to do it? It may, but I am saying this for the last time: If it does, it will be at a greater cost in American life; it will be at a greater cost in dollars; it will be at a greater cost to the war on terror; it will be at a greater cost to our reputation in the region; and I believe there is a better way to get this done.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I think this has been a very worthwhile colloquy between us. I must say on this side, there are 55 who are going to stand tall and unify with no dissension on tomorrow at the time of the vote.

At this time, can I inquire as manager of the bill if

there are other Senators desiring to speak?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are. Senator Harkin wants to speak for a few minutes. I know Senator Feingold wants to speak.

Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to remain here as long as is necessary.

Mr. KERRY. Senator Feingold, I understand, will not, but Senator Harkin wishes to speak.

Mr. WARNER. On this side, I see my colleague from Alabama, although he has had some opportunity, but very limited opportunity.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I am trying to accommodate Senators. I ask my friend, if he desires to speak, can he advise the manager of the bill how much time he would like?

Mr. HARKIN. I am not certain how much time I want. Who is next in line? Are we going back and forth?

Mr. WARNER. We are going back and forth, and I am about to relinquish the management of the bill to my good friend from Alabama.

The parliamentary situation is we remain on the bill, and debate can continue on the bill. We are not going to try and have time constraints. We are trying for the benefit of this infrastructure that has to remain in place and such Senators who may be listening to determine who would like to speak and for what period of time. That is all I am trying to ascertain.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the only speaker remaining on our side now is the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. WARNER. Can the Senator from Iowa advise the chairman

[nam78_two]

1. Recommended/nt

[rox63]

2. I know

I'm not nearly as eloquent as certain Senator(s), but K-frickin-R!!!

[babylonsister]

3. I thought he made the case last October. So which plan will

Baker, et al., steal? Murtha's? Levin's? Feingold's?