I fear that up to this point the Iraqi leadership has not stepped up to the plate to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to pave the way for a political solution. When I was in Iraq with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, we met with the Iraqi national security advisor to Prime Minister Maliki, Dr. Rubaie, who contended that sectarian violence wasn’t the main problem. The problem was the foreign terrorists, it was the Sunni insurgency. That’s not the case, Mr. President. As a Senator responsible for looking after the best interests of my constituents and all Americans, I take seriously the responsibility of Iraqi political leaders to honor the sacrifices that are being made by American soldiers. I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi. If Iraq is to fulfill its role as a sovereign and democratic state, it must start acting like one.
It is for this reason that I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad, where the violence can only be defined as sectarian. A troop surge proposal basically ignores the conditions on the ground, both as I saw on my most recent trip, and in reports I’ve been receiving regularly since my return. My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirm that an increase of troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred.
A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don’t believe that makes sense, Mr. President. Again, I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because I don’t believe it is a path to victory or a strategy to victory in Iraq. I recognize that there are those who think otherwise. The Iraqi Study Group and their report said that we could however support a short term redeployment, or a surge in American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, speed up training and equipment mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. I sat with the President, with Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues; I know that he has weighed this heavily. I know he has looked at this issue for a long time and apparently will come to a conclusion that in fact a troop surge would be helpful. I believe that his comments will contain, will hopefully contain, discussions about benchmarks containing commitments to do those things to rebuild an economy, to grow jobs, that we get rid of some of the underlying causes, the frustration that feeds an insurgency. But the bottom line again at this point in time, it is sectarian violence that I believe is the major issue we face, and more troops in Baghdad is not going to solve that problem Mr. President.
He is of the Iraqis must step up camp.
Mr. President, I represent Minnesota, but if I represented Missouri, I think I’d simply say to Maliki, show me. Show me your resolve, show me your commitment, show me that you can in fact do the things that have to be done to deal with the sectarian violence, and then we can talk about enhancing and increasing the American effort. I haven’t seen it, I don’t see it today. As such, I’m certainly not going to put more American troops at risk.
He does not take the obvious next step--that if the Maliki government continues to direct its use of force based on the interests of the Shiites, then the US has no alternative but to set a date certain for US withdrawal.
No comments:
Post a Comment