Support the New Iraq War Strategy

FLOOR STATEMENT: SUPPORT THE NEW IRAQ WAR STRATEGY

March 15th, 2007

Washington - In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today outlined his opposition to a Senate resolution that would to bring U.S. troops home before they can carry out their new strategy for securing Iraq. The resolution, S. J. Res. 9, was defeated 48 to 50.

His full speech follows:

The speech
Mr. President, today we are confronted with a struggle that could very well define the world in which our children -- and their children -- will live.

Many will say that this statement is hyperbole or politically expedient and designed to disguise a troubled policy.

I only wish that were so.

Mr. President, today we are fighting to prevent Iraq and Afghanistan from disintegrating into failed states, where that chaos will be exploited by those who wish to undermine -- and even destroy -- mainstream Muslim and Western civilization.

In the past, these terrorists used Afghanistan, and other developing nations, as safe havens from which attacks against Americans were planned and executed throughout the world. One hardly needs to be reminded of the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or the attack on the USS Cole to see this is true, not to mention the events of September 11th, 2001.

Now, what were to happen if we were to permit these terrorists, and others who wish us ill, to have another such safe haven? Of what would they be capable? Remember that from Afghanistan, a country without significant infrastructure or resources, these terrorists were able orchestrate the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

Just imagine what their capabilities if they were able to control only a fraction of the oil wealth of Iraq?

Is that the world in which we want our children and grandchildren to live, a world in which uncertainty and fear become part of everyday life?

As one prominent Democrat stated, before he reversed his position and announced his intention to run for President: “…we cannot and will not retreat. We will defend ourselves and defeat the enemies of freedom and progress.”

Were mistakes made in the conflict in Iraq?

In a word, “yes.”

And I am sad to say that important errors were made.

Perhaps one of the greatest occurred over the past 30 years right here in our nation’s capital. Past and present Administrations, Congresses, and Department of Defense leaders primarily concentrated on training and equipping our forces to fight what is called in military circles: The Big War.

In such a conflict, large formations of mechanized divisions, corps and armies seek to fight decisive battles on a conventional battlefield. This is not say that maintaining such a capability is no longer vital to our national security; it remains an absolute necessity.

However, in large part, due to the resolve of many of our military leaders not to fight “another Vietnam,” for the bulk of our armed forces the skills necessary to fight a counterinsurgency had withered and atrophied. This is exemplified by the fact that the Army-Marine Corps Doctrine for Counterinsurgency had not been updated for 20 years until December of 2006.

As General Petraeus, our new commander in Iraq, wrote one year ago, “the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not in truth, the wars for which we were best prepared in 2001; however, they are the wars we are fighting and they clearly are the kind of wars we must master.”

Other dire mistakes were also made.

Many of those errors can be directly attributed to the decisions made by the Coalition Provisional Authority which originated from or were ratified by the senior civilian leadership of the Pentagon, at the time. This includes the decision to disband the Iraqi Army without providing alternative means for the employing and sustaining its former members. These former Iraqi soldiers went on to become the foundation of the initial insurgency.

Another mistake was the decision to eliminate the first three levels of leadership, not only in government ministries, but hospitals, universities and government-run corporations. Managers, no matter how junior, who were members of the Saddam Hussein’s Baathist party, were removed. The result was those who had the managerial experience best suited to re-build Iraq’s institutions were arbitrarily dismissed, even if they had not played any role in Saddam’s atrocities.

In sum, many of the problems that we confront today are a result of our own short-sightedness and the Administration’s failure to fully and comprehensively develop and execute a plan for stabilization of Iraq after the fall of the Saddam regime.

So how do we go forward?

We do have options.

Some, such as the authors and supporters of S.J.Res. 9, argue that we should unilaterally bring the bulk our forces home from Iraq.

Yet, we all know what would happen if that were to occur. Iraq would be a failed state offering a safe haven for terrorists.

Those who make this argument forget, or perhaps they do not know, that unlike our war in Vietnam, we face an enemy who is religiously committed to bring the fight here to our shores.

If the terrorists know that we will withdraw the bulk of our forces in 120 days, as this legislation calls for, all the enemy has to do is husband its resources or “lie low” until that date. Perhaps the terrorists will launch fewer attacks to lull us into a false sense of security that this defeatist strategy is working. Then, with the cold calculation for which these terrorists have become notorious, they will spring on the Iraqi people before their government’s institutions -- which were completely destroyed in 2003 -- can mature and fully take over the reins of fighting and then defeating, this insurgency.

These are not compelling options, Mr. President, because at their core these “solutions” do not have the goal of victory, but consist of resignation to an inevitable defeat.

So how do we win?

How do we defeat the terrorists and give the Iraqi people a fighting chance to claim a destiny of their own, a destiny that is based upon peace and the rule of law?

Mr. President, the answer is not simple; but what great endeavor ever was?

First, we must learn from our mistakes.

Then we must implement a strategy that harnesses the tactics and strategies that have defeated other insurgents in the past, and apply those lessons to the conflict in Iraq. That is what our new strategy, called Operation Fard al-Qanun, -- which is Arabic for Enforcing the Law -- sets out to achieve.

So what is this operation’s strategic objective?

Once again, I believe that General Petraeus said it best during his confirmation hearing. He said, “the mission… will be modified, making security of the population, particularly in Baghdad and in partnership with Iraqi force, the focus of the military effort.”

I could not agree more.

Creating a secure environment is the essential task.

This is accomplished -- not just by conducting operations to clear an area of insurgents -- but by maintaining an American/Iraqi security force in cleared areas which assists in providing essential services such as clean water and power to the local population. This, in turn, creates conditions where the Iraqi people can begin to develop a growing economy and where families feel safe to send their children to school.

As these goals are achieved, more and more of the population will desire even greater stability and will support and work toward creating Iraqi government institutions and security services that maintain and enhance this new security environment.

How is this strategy different from past endeavors? Unfortunately, in the past there were far too few American and capable Iraqi forces available to provide adequate security once an area had been cleared.

That is why the additional forces that we are sending to Iraq are so important. It is not more for more’s sake, but to maintain a secure environment for the Iraqi people.

This does not mean that our forces will be going it alone. Far from it.

A key principle of the new strategy is to enhance and strengthen our efforts to advise and train the Iraqi military and police forces so that they may eventually take over primary responsibility for the defense of their own nation.

We must also remember that training was one of the major recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Indeed, one of the members of my own party, who has authored legislation disagreeing with this new strategy -- despite voting for the nomination of its implementer General Petraeus -- stated that Iraqi forces “while they’re not fully independently capable of operating, they’re excellent and trustworthy and fighting hard with our troops today… I would be willing to serve alongside those Iraqi forces.”

I believe that it is also important to add that that, as of last week, three of the four Iraqi battalions that recently entered Baghdad were at above 100 percent troop strength.

Another vital element is our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. I can think of no better choice for implementing our new strategy. General Petraeus has long been a student of counterinsurgency warfare. In the 1980s when he received his PhD from Princeton, he closely studied counterinsurgency operations.

During the initial Race to Baghdad, the General commanded the 101st Airborne Division, and he is largely credited with devising and implementing a strategy that secured the city of Mosul immediately after the initial combat phase.

Later, when he commanded our effort to train the Iraqi Army, General Petraeus implemented the Transition Team concept. A Transition Team is composed of a group of advisors, primarily officers and seasoned non-commissioned officers, who serve with Iraqi units from those units’ inception, including basic and advanced training and eventually combat operations.

This is an important strategy, since experienced U.S. soldiers learn first-hand the operational characteristics and requirements of Iraq units and tailor a training program to fit the units need. It also provides a detailed analysis of the individual Iraqi units’ combat capabilities.

General Petraeus was also one of the authors of the updated Army/Marine Corps Field Manual on Counterinsurgency which was published in December of last year.

Mr. President, I do not know of any other officer with the intellect and experience necessary to carry out successfully this new strategy and win the war in Iraq. He has my full confidence.

But what he needs is our support and time to carry out his new strategy. One must also remember that all of the additional forces needed to implement fully this new strategy will not be in place until early June.

As the General stated in a recent news conference “We are, in any event, still in the early days of this endeavor, an endeavor that will take months, not days or weeks, to fully implement, and one that will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect. …I have been on occasion bemused by people ‘Hey, how’s it going’ Have you won yet? And the answer is we’ve just started. Just the second of five brigades [has arrived]… Our soldiers are resolute. They want to see this succeed, as do their Iraqi counterparts, and that is exactly what we’re endeavoring to do.”

So what do we offer him and the soldiers, sailors, airmen and coast guardsman under his command? We offer guaranteed defeat in the form of a Joint Resolution.

But, with all due respect to General Petraeus, I believe we have already seen some preliminary success. For example, Richard Engel, the NBC News reporter who has lived in Iraq for the past few years covering the war, responded just last month, about our change in tactics.

He said: “Night and day. There’s a radically new war plan under way in Baghdad right now. For the past four years, US troops have been on main bases, most of them outside the city center, some of them in Baghdad itself, and then have been effectively been commuting to work. Now they live at work, there’re living in small forward operating bases… It is a very different strategy. We’re seeing foot patrols again that we haven’t seen in Baghdad for a long time, more hearts and minds campaign… It’s very much a new war. A lot of people say that this feels like ’03, that the war is starting again and that this is a new battle plan. The battle plan to end the war in Iraq and finally establish some sort of stability.”

Mr. President, I would also like to address a matter that, more then any other, has weighed on my heart over the past few years.

That question is: do we, not just as a nation but as a people, have the will to see our obligations through?

This has always been an important question.

But now, during an insurgent war, where the side with the greatest will, not technological advantage, will generally emerge victorious, it has become the essential question.

So now we must ask ourselves: do we have the will to see right triumph?

Do we as Americans believe in making sacrifices for the greater good?

History provides an answer.

Almost 230 years ago, the Continental Army began a retreat, or more accurately a rout, from Brooklyn Heights, over the island of Manhattan into New Jersey and then across the Delaware River. General Washington had fewer than a thousand troops and was confronted by the greatest army of the day.

The Continentals enlistments were up and many soldiers, lacking basic supplies and even food, were making plans to go home. For all intents and purposes, the American experiment in democracy, where all men were to be treated equal, was about to end.

Then something miraculous happened. A writer named Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet entitled “Crisis.” But panic was not his essay’s subject.

He wrote about commitment and faith that freedom would one day be victorious.

His words still echo today: “These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Shortly, after the Continental Army heard these words, the morale, which had been crushed by the cold winters of New Jersey, was restored enough for General Washington to launch the raids on Trenton and Princeton, thus saving the young Republic.

Commitment and faith had been restored --the faith that freedom is worth fighting for, that it is worth sacrificing for.

That is what, we, as a nation must remember now, more then ever.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.