Mr. Skelton: Madam Speaker, Thomas M. Ruyle wrote an excellent article, entitled "Army Stretched Beyond Limits", which appeared in the Sedalia Democrat on April 12, 2007. This article accurately describes the current state of our Army and the challenges it faces. I wish to share Mr. Ruyle's writing with the rest of the chamber:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' announcement yesterday that all active-duty soldiers currently serving in Iraq would have their rotations extended by three months is the latest evidence that our military cannot meet the demands placed on it.
Furthermore, the Pentagon this week alerted four National Guard brigades for a second tour in Iraq, long before those units have had five years at home since their last deployment, as policy dictates.
Some active-duty units, such as the 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, are serving their third tour in Iraq in four years.
They recently returned to Iraq after a shortened rest and re-training period. Newer soldiers have, in many cases, not had the time to train with their new comrades before being sent into battle.
Reserve units that have already served are woefully short on equipment and ammunition to properly retrain, either for the maw of Iraq or defending America itself. The Marine Corps recently announced that jungle training--a Corps mainstay-- will be suspended as that service is forced to concentrate all resources on training for Iraq.
In the event of a major conflict erupting between the U.S. and another nation--Iran, North Korea and Pakistan come immediately to mind--America's ground forces, particularly the Army, are in no way, shape or form capable of responding appropriately.
Meanwhile, the current administration--particularly the vice president--continues to maintain that everything is progressing as scheduled in Iraq, and that anyone who begs to differ is a defeatist or unpatriotic. Trouble is, there was no schedule and little planning involved in the Iraq debacle.
The administration went to Iraq on a platform of lies, failed to heed the warnings of senior military officers and other warfare experts, and did not react appropriately when things started going bad in Iraq shortly after the invasion.
Indeed, under Donald Rumsfeld, the defense establishment followed the 'script' rather than act to prevent the looming realities that are obvious now.
Since 2001, America's military has been engaged full-time in two separate wars: The War on Terrorism (primarily in Afghanistan), and (since 2003) a second, unnecessary war that has only begotten more terrorism, further destabilized the Middle East and left America very vulnerable.
As an Army National Guard veteran of the Iraq War, I've seen firsthand the toll that a combat deployment will have on a unit, its equipment, soldiers and, their families. It takes years for a unit to properly recover and be ready to deploy again.
Sending units back to Iraq on a speeded-up schedule is a, disservice to not only the soldiers and families affected, but America's long-term strategy (if there is one) in Iraq as well as America itself.
All the while, there has been no effort to expand the military or adequately address the equipment shortcomings of units after serving in the harsh climate of the Middle East.
The recent spate of Guard alerts, tour extensions and shortened rest periods are indicative of a problem that the Pentagon and administration utterly refuse to acknowledge: The United States Army is broken, and it will take billions of dollars over at least a decade to bring the Army back up to a fully competent readiness level.
Mr. Van Hollen: Madam Speaker, today marks the 4th anniversary of the speech President Bush gave on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in which he told the American people that hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan were over.
Standing under a broad "Mission Accomplished" banner, the President congratulated Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for a job well done and declared Iraq free and the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan destroyed.
Like many Americans, the image of the President under that banner 4 years ago still stands out because each passing year is a reminder that the mission has not been accomplished, Iraq is not a safer place, and neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda have been destroyed.
The President and his advisors try to distract the public with evocative images and declarations about success in Iraq and Afghanistan. But no amount of spin can disguise the harsh reality of the desperate situation on the ground.
On that day 4 years ago, when the President declared an end of hostilities, there were 142,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Today there are 155,000. On May 1st, 2003, there had been 138 American casualties and 542 wounded in Iraq. Today the number of casualties is 3,351 and the number of wounded is 25,090.
The Iraqi people have also paid a dear price during this war. Though exact numbers are difficult to find, the estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since May 2003 is between 53,000 and 63,000. One controversial study in 2004 estimated that as many as 655,000 have been killed. Today the President had an opportunity to change direction in Iraq and begin to bring the war to an end. He squandered that opportunity.
The Congress sent the President a bill that would hold Iraqis accountable for taking the steps necessary to achieve political reconciliation and greater stability. The bill also provided additional funding to go after Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. By vetoing the bill, the President missed an opportunity to change direction in Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan.
The situation in Afghanistan remains grim. On this day 4 years ago, the President told the American people, "In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed Al Qaeda and the Taliban." In speech after speech, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials claimed that Al Qaeda had been routed.
But the reality is that 4 years after the U.S. invasion, the Taliban have regrouped and remains a serious threat. In fact, a new Jihadist sanctuary appears to be emerging on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
By almost any metric, whether it is the number of Iraqi schools being built or the number of Afghan roads secured, it is clear that the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is far from accomplished. But it is also clear that Americans no longer have the patience for impressive photo ops and overblown pronouncements about completed missions. The American public wants achievable goals and quantifiable results--not slogans.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina: Madam Speaker, yesterday Democrat leaders staged a ceremony to send their defeatist supplemental bill to President Bush. As Democrats joined together around their proposal of retreat, our troops in Baghdad waited yet another day for critical funding.
The sad irony is that for all of their pomp and circumstance, Democrat leaders should face the threat of al-Qaeda, in that Zawahiri has declared Iraq the central front in the Global War on Terrorism. We should be working together in the Global War on Terrorism, not promote plans of defeat. We need to be on the offense protecting American families.
Fortunately, President Bush vetoed the Democrat plan for defeat last night. I look forward to voting to uphold this veto and am hopeful we can now get down to the business of providing for our troops. We must face the terrorists overseas or we will face them again in the streets of America.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September 11th.
(Mr. Kucinich asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Kucinich: The President's veto will stand, but now what will we stand for?
We say we want the war to end, but will we give the President the money to continue the war? We say we want our troops home, but will we continue to support the occupation? We know that U.S. contractors have been stealing from U.S. taxpayers and the Iraqi government, but will we leave our troops in Iraq to protect them? We know oil has had a lot to do with this war, but will we let this President get away with attempting to privatize Iraq's oil wealth in the name of reconciliation?
We can still change course. We can deny the administration funds to continue the war. We can bring our troops home. We can stabilize Iraq with an international security force once we end the occupation. That is exactly what H.R. 1234 is about, and it is time that we started to look for alternatives which reflect this Nation's highest aspirations.
(Mr. Doggett asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Doggett: Mr. Speaker, the President can veto our plan for a safe and orderly phased redeployment from Iraq, but he cannot veto reality. Our troops are coming home, it's just a question of how much blood and money will be spent before they do.
If the President had listened to the generals, we would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Each day of this unnecessary tragedy demonstrates the wisdom of General Schwarzkopf's warning that we would become "like [a] dinosaur in a tar pit."
Had he listened to the generals, the President would have deployed enough troops to get the job done. But instead, he rejected the advice of General Shinseki, and allowed the violence to spiral, and unguarded weapon heaps became IEDs.
If the President had listened to the generals, he would now be redeploying our troops instead of sending more, inadequately protected, for longer, repeat tours of duty.
Had the President listened to the generals, our veterans would be getting the quality care that they have earned and they deserve.
But in this Administration, generals who disagree with the President earn a new title: Retired.
(Mr. Sarbanes asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Sarbanes: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Congress sent the President an emergency supplemental bill that provides our soldiers and our veterans everything the President asked for and more. It was a bill supported by the American people, this Congress and military experts who believe it is time to change the course of the war in Iraq. The President's response? A veto.
The President's action last night shows not only his stubbornness and his inability to work with others, it also demonstrates that he simply refuses to change the status quo.
The President refuses to give our troops, this Congress, or the American people any timelines as to when this war will end or under what conditions he would finally bring our troops home.
Mr. Speaker, the President says that things are getting better in Iraq, but that's simply not true. Last month was one of the deadliest months for American troops in Iraq. One hundred four soldiers were killed.
It's time for a new course. It's time for the President to sit down and work with this Congress so we can finally produce the change that will end this war.
(Mrs. Bachmann asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. Bachmann: Mr. Speaker, last night the President did what he said he was going to do for weeks now. He vetoed the Democrat supplemental that was loaded with pork, tied the hands of our generals on the ground and provided the enemy with an ill-conceived exit strategy.
As the President said last night, Mr. Speaker, "Congress passed a bill that substitutes the judgment of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders." I couldn't agree with him more, and that's why I opposed this supplemental, and that's exactly why he vetoed it.
We must not, as a nation, be invested in defeat. Again, I repeat, we must not, as a nation, be invested in defeat. Unilateral surrender may be the Democrats' plan, but it will not lead to a safer America.
Now that the veto has taken place, it is simply unacceptable for the Democrat leaders to delay any further the funding that our American troops deserve. Let's pass a clean Iraq supplemental.
(Mr. Braley of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Braley of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, even after losing 3,200 American lives and spending billions of taxpayer dollars since declaring "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago, the Bush administration continues to demand an open-ended commitment of American troops in Iraq. Yesterday President Bush refused to change the course when he vetoed a bill that was supported by Congress, retired military generals and the American people.
This Democratic Congress put forth a plan for a responsible end to the war consistent with our national security needs.
Even Secretary of Defense Gates himself reiterated last month that congressional debate was helpful. He delivered the message to the Iraqi Government that the clock is ticking on U.S. operations there. President Bush's veto yesterday lets the Iraqi Government off the hook and shows the President plans to keep our troops there indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, the days of rubber-stamping the President's war proposals are long over. The President is going to have to learn to work with the Democratic leadership on this Congress so that we can find a way out of Iraq soon, and so we can provide our troops with the resources they need.
(Ms. Shea-Porter asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. Shea-Porter: Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush called the timetable a "prescription for chaos and confusion." That timetable was a responsible road map out of Iraq.
The President has caused chaos and confusion for 4 long years, replacing one general after another when the general disagrees with the policy.
What has the President given us? He's given us the largest deficit in history. He's cut back from domestic programs to pay for this war. He's weakened our military. Eighty-eight percent of the National Guard is not prepared to go to war. The Army is strained to a breaking point.
He's neglected our own people, and he has destroyed Iraq's economy, their social fabric. People are leaving Iraq, fleeing from the chaos the President has caused for 4 long years.
We had a responsible road map. The President should have signed it.
(Mr. Sires asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Sires: Mr. Speaker, 4 years yesterday, President Bush sent a strong message to the American people, to our troops, and to the world, that our mission in Iraq was accomplished. Can you imagine that?
Four years later it is clear that this was just one of the many miscalculations on Bush's administration's part. Over the past 4 years, we have lost more than 3,000 additional troops, tens of thousands more have been severely injured, and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars have been spent. Now a dangerous civil war is being waged with no end in sight.
The American military did its job. Military experts agree that there is no military solution to the war in Iraq. That is why this Congress approved an emergency supplemental bill last week that sent a strong message to the Iraqi Government that this is the time to get their political house in order. American troops are not going to be there indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush was wrong 4 years ago. He's wrong now as he vetoes this bill. It is time for the President to work with this Congress to come up with a plan to end this war.
(Mr. Walz of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Walz of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago today, President Bush landed for a photo opportunity on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" and declared an end to major combat in Iraq. Four years later this President refuses to even discuss the reality of a military mission that has entered its fifth year.
Yesterday the President vetoed only the second bill that has ever come to his desk. He called it a "prescription for chaos and confusion." I ask, how is that different from what we have now? He refuses to even hold the Iraqis accountable for making political, economic or diplomatic reforms that he promised and they promised to make. He's holding up funding for our troops and for our veterans.
But what exactly is the President waiting for? Now that the President has rejected our legislation, he has the responsibility to tell the American people how many more years does he expect us to stay. Do you think it will be 5? Maybe 10? And what exactly do the ground conditions look like in order to have us beginning to withdraw? Wishful thinking, political talking points and rigid ideology do not make good foreign policy.
This President was wrong when he declared an end of combat operations, and he has been consistently wrong about every single thing in Iraq. It's time that this President works with the new Congress, elected by the majority of the American people, so that we can bring about a change to this war and truly secure America.
(Mr. Payne asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, over this past weekend, five more American soldiers were killed in Iraq, bringing the number killed in April to over 100 U.S. soldiers. It was the deadliest month for American soldiers this year. Sadly, the total number of Americans killed now stands at 3,351, along with thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.
The realities on the ground that our brave soldiers continue to face day in and day out stand in stark contrast to President Bush's pronouncement 4 years ago that major combat operations in Iraq were over.
If major operations were over 4 years ago, what have our troops been fighting the last 4 years? If indeed our mission was accomplished 4 years ago, as the banner behind the President on that aircraft carrier proclaimed, what are American troops still doing in Iraq?
If the President truly wants to bring our mission to a just conclusion, he should work with Congress instead of simply vetoing our funding bill as he did. It's now up to the President to decide if he will support accountability for Iraqis, benchmarks for success, and new direction in Iraq, for we cannot stay this course.
| Congressional Records Iraq War - 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| May | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| May 2, 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| House | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| May 2 House Comments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ike Skelton (D-MO) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Joe Wilson (R-SC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| John Sarbanes (D-MD) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Michele Bachmann (R-MN) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bruce Braley (D-IA) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Albio Sires (D-NJ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Timothy J. Walz (D-MN) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bush Veto H.R. 1591 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Senate | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sen Murray: Supplemental | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Isakson & Coryn: Veto H.R. 1591 |
