Ike Skelton

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. I rise to speak against the rule. I take a back seat to no one in supporting our American military and their families. No one. But before us is a resolution that is not the fulfillment of a promise that we were given. We were told we would be able to have a debate on Iraq. That is not the case. This resolution covers the waterfront. Iraq is a singular war that we should discuss at length by itself. You see, there are two ongoing wars: The war against terror, which has genesis in Afghanistan, and we did the right thing going in there. We are still chasing bin Laden, and some day we will get him. We toppled the Taliban. And then, of course, we went into Iraq based upon the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and we are there. I sent two letters to the President of the United States warning about the aftermath, warning about what might very, very well happen after our national victory, and it came to pass. We have an insurgency there which is different and distinct from terrorists. The insurgency is composed of Baathists, Fedayeen, and Sunni, who were basically in charge under Saddam Hussein. This is their attempt to knock down the government that is there and to establish their own, far from being the terrorists that we went after in Afghanistan. Two wars. That is why this is a disingenuous resolution before us.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue today, this important issue for so many Americans across the country, from my home State of Missouri. So many families such as mine have young people in uniform. But this resolution before us today is not what we requested, nor is it what we were told we would have before us to debate. We expected a resolution confined to the country of Iraq and the conflict there. That is not what the resolution is. This resolution covers the Middle East waterfront, trying to blend together the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, these are two separate and distinct wars. We did the right thing by going into Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, which supported and protected the al Qaeda terrorists. And then came along the discussion, the international discussion about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction. We made the decision, as a country, to go into Iraq. At that time, Mr. Speaker, knowing the history and the culture of the Middle East, I sent two letters to the President of the United States, one on September 4, 2002, and one on March 18, 2003, before we went into Iraq. My letters warned against the aftermath. They sent an Assistant Secretary of State and an Assistant Secretary of Defense over to see me and said, ``Ike, it will be all right.'' We know what happened in the aftermath insurgency because we allowed the looting, we sent the Iraqi Army home, rather than give them a paycheck and a shovel, and didn't have enough troops to quell any insurgency. And it arose. And here we are, some 3 years later. Despite the fact that this resolution is a broad one, let's talk about Iraq, which should be the complete subject of the resolution before us. Mr. Speaker, this Nation is at a strategic crossroads. We are spending $8 billion a month, over $300 billion on this war. And more strikingly, we are losing, Mr. Speaker, a battalion's worth of casualties killed or injured between Iraq and Afghanistan. By far, most of them are, sadly, in Iraq. And there are increasing insurgent inspired attacks. Now, what makes this resolution so interesting is the fact that it flies in the face of the law that we passed here in the Congress of the United States and the President signed. The bill, the defense bill of 2005 said this: ``Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.'' That is the law of our land. That is what the defense bill said last year. ``Thereby creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.'' What does this mean to us in the long run? Well, farmers in Missouri know that the quality of the corn that they plant will bring about the quality of the corn that grows. And we find ourselves militarily eating our seed corn in the country of Iraq. Sadly, a few moments ago we had a moment of silence for the 2,500th American that sacrificed a life in that sad country. But it means eating up the equipment, and we are using equipment right and left and it is going to take 3 years to refurbish the United States Army if the war would stop today equipment- wise. There are challenges in recruiting and retention. But I have to tell you how proud I am of those young people in uniform today. But if we do not take serious thought about the phraseology that is in the law creating the condition for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, I think that we may be eating our military seed corn. And what does this mean? It means that the United States of America will be less prepared to either deter or defend an attack that might come at some future date. This is serious business. We need to remain strong militarily. That is the way you deter problems. Should North Korea, somewhere in Asia, somewhere in Latin America, somewhere in Africa that would cause us to be involved, the question is, Mr. Speaker, would we be prepared militarily to meet that challenge? That is why it is very important that we do our very best to take seriously the law regarding transition this year, the significant transition. And what will it take? It will take the Iraqi government to stand up on its own, and it is on its way there, to transfer the security problem and situation to their police force and to their military, and we have some 250,000 Iraqi military either fully trained or nearly fully trained. We have to hand the baton over to them. We as a country, whether militarily or not, cannot determine the fate of Iraq. The Iraqis have to do it themselves, their own government, their own military, and their own police force. We can be of help. We have been of help. We have been there some 3 years. I think it is time for us to seriously look at where we are, where we are going, and do our very best to keep ourselves militarily strong for those days that are bound to happen. And, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Members I have been in Congress 29 plus years thanks to those wonderful folks in Missouri. During that time, we have had 10 military confrontations with other countries. History being what it is reflects that, and the future may hold something similar. We hope not. But the question is will we be militarily prepared when the time comes? The Iraq adventure needs to be looked at in light of the law that we passed last year. The calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is the law. That is what the Congress passed. That is what the President signed. And that is where we are. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point my letters in full to the President, dated September 4, 2002, and March 18, 2003. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 4, 2002. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the briefing this morning. I share your concern about the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to offer my assistance as the administration considers how to deal with this threat. Before Congress can authorize any military action that might be part of the administration's plan, we must have answers to more questions than were able to be raised. at today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to ensure that all implications of such action are considered in advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without considering the last.'' Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi WMD must also address several component issues, each of which raises critical questions. 1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam regime: As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial question for administration strategy to answer in advance of any military action. I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it. As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art of War, ``To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits, difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike knew this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the end of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, and its isolated economic system argues both for careful consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning if such military action is approved. Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan now for what to do with members of the Baath party that continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program. All these efforts require careful planning and long-term commitment of manpower and resources. The American people must be clear about the amount of money and the number of soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many years to come. 2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine international support for the broader war on terrorism: In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly in the Middle East. When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' approach to international relations you espoused during the presidential campaign. More than that, it has several potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorist groups out of their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts beyond containable bounds. Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well move away from the United States in the face of attacks that could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks against Americans. These concerns do not make military action in Iraq untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the battle and lose the war. 3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this operation successfully as well as its other military missions: As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of missions. Given the operational pressures these forces currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military spending on transformational technologies and on sound quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered before any military action commences so that the American people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved. I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American people, and our friends around the world to understand exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has military action as its centerpiece will require great diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to hearing the administration's answers and to working with you to find the best course of action. Sincerely, Ike Skelton, Ranking Democrat.

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the media just reported the sad news that we have just reached a sad milestone: 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask at the outset of this very important debate that the House observe a moment of silence for all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, in light of the gentleman from Arkansas' comments, Dr. Snyder, to remind the body, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Investigation Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee that produced the all important legislation we now call Goldwater-Nickels, which brought about jointness within the armed services. And I also might mention that all 29 Democrats sent a letter to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, from which we have not received an answer, recommending and asking that the Investigations Or Oversight Subcommittee be reestablished. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments made by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), I reflect on an article from The Washington Post. And it is sad and disturbing that on the very day that we announced and learned that 2,500 American troops have been killed in Iraq, that the prime minister, Maliki, proposes a limited amnesty, a plan likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops. That is very disturbing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who has been to Iraq some nine times, former Army Ranger, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall). (Mr. MARSHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes at this time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). (Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SKELTON. Can the Chair advise the time I have left, please.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying how proud I am of those young men and women in uniform. I know every Member in this body joins me in saying how pleased and proud we are of them. A sad moment earlier today was when it was announced that 2,500 had given their lives in Iraq. But what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, more than anything is the request that we made for discussion on Iraq and this resolution that before us today was the result. Trying to blend and fudge together the war in Iraq, which is separate and distinct from the war on terrorism, is disingenuous. Mr. Schiff, the gentleman from California, a moment ago, referred to an amendment by Senator Warner, Armed Services chairman in the Senate. That amendment stayed in the law last year. This is what we should be discussing today about Iraq, as we were told we would. Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq. That is where we should be today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, tonight I wish to speak about Iraq, a separate and distinct war from the war on terrorism. Those who are terrorists with their genesis in Afghanistan have a goal of creating a fundamentalist Muslim caliphate all across the Middle East. The insurgents are Baathists and Sunnis in Iraq who have as their goal a separate and distinct one of toppling the government that is there and creating their own. My friends on the other side of the aisle wish to confuse the battle against terrorists and the battle against insurgents in the country of Iraq. Tonight I wish to speak about Iraq because we are at a strategic crossroads as a Nation regarding that war. I wish to speak about the health of our military that is being drained by the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, we are sustaining a battalion's worth of casualties every month wounded and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of attacks on the American and allied forces is at the highest level since the insurgency began despite the increase of America combat operations and the introduction of some 40 new Iraq security forces and battalions. An ABC poll shows that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the situation in Iraq. What is responsible for us arriving at this point? I have to say a lot of good words about our military, the finest we have ever had, they are doing a superb job. I am proud of them, and every American should be. But there have been operational strategic mistakes sadly made by the administration that has brought us to this point at a crossroads in Iraq. First, allowing the looting; second, not having a plan for the aftermath, although duly warned; by dismissing the Iraqi Army rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel; failure to plan and have American civilian professionals from the State Department, Transportation Department, Agriculture Department, and Judiciary with the right skills to advise the Iraqis when they took over their governmental ministries; the failure to react to the wartime collapse of the Iraqi military and security police forces; and the decision to disband the Army, as I mentioned; failure to have a sufficient number of American troops at the beginning and later as General Eric Shinseki warned. This is a year of transition in Iraq. The bill that we passed last year, the defense bill, stated that calendar year 2006 should be a period of time of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq. If we are not able to redeploy our forces from Iraq, the health of our military will be seriously endangered. We are wearing the troops out. Not just the troops, but the equipment. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, 13,849 members of the selected reserves have had three deployments, and 10,408 have been deployed more than three times. Well, where do we go from here? We have to do our best to train those Iraqis, let them and their government know that the ball is in their court. We have to make sure they are properly equipped, and I might also say that the equipment of the Army and Marines Corps ground equipment is wearing out. Some of it is wearing out from two to nine times the peacetime rate. We have global interests, potential threats from elsewhere, North Korea, Iran, Taiwan Straits and the like. We must be prepared for any future threat. That is why it is important that this be a transition year, 2006. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlewoman from California. This is the year of transition. It is up to the Iraqi people. It is up to the Iraqi Government. It is up to the Iraqi forces. They are going to have to take it upon themselves with the assistance of the wonderful Americans that are there to make this transition work. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing us to speak tonight. This is a very, very important debate.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Victory in Iraq is of primary importance. But it is really up to the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi people. We are and we have been doing and, of course, we will continue to be of great assistance. The primary importance is that the Iraqis assume more and more of their own security and of their own destiny. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. SKELTON

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.