FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today addressed the current Iraq debate on the Senate floor.
The text of the speech, as prepared for delivery, is below.
"As everyone here knows, we are now in the thick of the battle for Baghdad - a critical battle whose outcome hangs in the balance. A new commander, General David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by this Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action.
The question we now confront is simple: will Congress give General Petraeus and his troops a fighting chance to succeed?
The joint resolution before us would deny them that chance, forcing our troops to break off the battle of Baghdad before it has barely begun. Instead of providing General Petraeus with the necessary reinforcements he has requested - the reinforcements he is counting on - it would begin to strip troops away from him.
We need to be clear with ourselves, and with the nation, on this point: the joint resolution we are debating would impose a fixed date for the beginning of a withdrawal. One hundred twenty days after this legislation is passed, American forces would be required by law to begin redeploying out of Iraq. This would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the wishes of our allies, regardless of whether security is improving or deteriorating.
It would bind the hands of General Petraeus, substituting the judgement of Congress for the judgement of our military commanders, our diplomats, and of our friends in the region.
Congress has many responsibilities, but the micromanagement of war is not one of them.
In fact, the proponents of this resolution make no attempt to justify why 120 days from now is the right time to commence a withdrawal. That is because there is no military or strategic logic at work here. This is a deadline that is as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It specifically denies General Petraeus the room for maneuver that history tells us any successful commander requires.
Surely we know better than this. Surely we cannot think that this is a path to success.
I remember hearing many of my colleagues arguing against precisely this kind of fixed deadline - some of them right here in this chamber - just a few months ago.
I ask my colleagues, what has changed? what is the strategic logic here?
We hear opponents of the current strategy insist that our troops should not be 'policing a civil war.'
That position might come as a surprise to the soldiers who have been serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, dispatched there under a Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress - the support of many of the same colleagues of mine who today are clamoring for withdrawal.
I ask you, what has changed?
I could not agree more.
Posts
