John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I would say this has been a good debate. Say what you want. I listened very carefully to what you said, and there are certain elements with which I agree with you. You and I have known each other a long time. I have great respect for your military career, the accomplishments you have had. I think you often shared that with regard to my modest career. But I must say, I kind of bit my tongue here a few minutes ago when you said in our old days we used to have a colloquy and talked. I arrived on the floor of this Senate at around 9:30, when I first got here. It is exactly 12 hours now that I have been on this floor. And the first thing I said--and I don't want to personalize this--to the other side of the aisle was: Now, let's try to engage in a colloquy and exchange some views. I did say that since we were under a time constraint my questions would be charged to me, the replies from the other side charged to your side. It seemed to me fair enough. We had 5 hours before us at that time. But I have to tell you, I was flatly turned down. So now, after 12 hours and your invitation to enter into a colloquy, I say to my good friend, you can ask me any question you wish. And I might start off with a question or two for you.

Mr. WARNER. Beg your pardon?

Mr. WARNER. Well, that is history. We are here now. Why don't we make the best of it?

Mr. WARNER. We are here now.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I must say, I shared that on this side, but I was willing to take the heat.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't know what that fraction is. But in discussions with senior military, clearly, they have said the insurgents, the foreign invaders, the others who have come in have dropped in terms of--somewhat--numbers of incidents. And, indeed, the sectarian violence--Sunni versus Shia, Kurds to some extent--has grown enormously. So I cannot qualify it. But the Senator is correct. And that leads me to my first question, because----

Mr. WARNER. Well, that remains to be seen. They are, right now, for example, in Baghdad, fighting side by side. A very significant number of Iraqi troops, together with the components of our troops, are trying to bring about a greater measure of stability and security in the very capital of this country. I think we should make known to those following the debate and those who listened to the debate with Senator Levin, Senator Levin's amendment was a sense of the Congress. The amendment of our colleague from Massachusetts very explicitly becomes law, if it were adopted and eventually went into the bill and the bill survived the conference. The point I wish to make is, you are directing the President. For example, it says: The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, this year, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. So this is law. As we used to say in the old days, we are shooting real bullets with this one, not just a sense of the Congress. Throughout the debate, not only this one in the past day or two on this bill, but we have always, certainly, on this side, resisted timetables. You talk about putting together a summit. That is on page 2, section (b), Iraq Summit: The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each of the countries bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--I think that is important to have NATO in there--representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues--that is a very important point you make, disbanding the militias--another very important point, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq. Those are all important subjects, commendable goals. But first let's go back. It has taken the Iraqis 18 months since the first election in early 2005, through three elections, through the formation of the first permanent government. And the first permanent government is just, as you and I as old sailors would say, getting its sea legs. You start a conference like this--and I think it is a good idea--but the first question that is going to be asked is, can we proceed to achieve any of these goals if we have overhanging this the redeployment of our forces by July 1, 2007? Senator, that is a timetable. That is a concept which I and I think the majority in this Chamber have continuously rejected. How could you ask the other nations of the world to come in and begin to put their credit on the line, their dollars on the line, if you have this timetable to pull out the very foundation that is supporting such progress as has been achieved in the 18 months of getting the first government up and testing their sea legs?

Mr. WARNER. I caution my colleague because that is saying to this new Iraqi Government that you are going to fail.

Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, I cannot see, for example, the governments of each country bordering Iraq suddenly beginning to rush in if they feel that a civil war could start. The pulling out of the troops, the setting of a timetable will be a signal to all of the various factions. I will concede it is the Shia against the Sunnis that is the major faction. Wait them out. Let's let the troops flow out and then we will topple this government with a civil war. It seems to me, I say to my colleague, you cannot expect these nations that border Iraq, the Arab League, I can't see that they would step up and say, we are willing to do everything. But wait a minute, coalition forces----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share that concern, but----

Mr. WARNER. It is the presence of our troops today that is probably holding it back from becoming a civil war.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I remember well that conflict because I was then on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we just disagree. I feel this government hasn't been given a chance. It has only been 6 weeks. It took 18 months to get to where they are today. If we were to enact this into law, presumably the authorization bill would be signed by the President--there is a question whether if this is in there, he would sign it--this would go into law in a matter of a few months. And then suddenly to try and call on the rest of the world--and by the way, I certainly did not see the European Union trying to help form the coalition forces. Of each permanent member of the Security Council, the only one, Great Britain, stepped forward. I don't see those countries suddenly coming in and making the types of commitments that this paragraph requires, if we are going to pull out the very stability that is holding together this fragile government and preventing a civil war today.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I think this has been a very worthwhile colloquy between us. I must say on this side, there are 55 who are going to stand tall and unify with no dissension on tomorrow at the time of the vote. At this time, can I inquire as manager of the bill if there are other Senators desiring to speak?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have covered this point. We will just have to agree to disagree. I would draw your attention to the clause where you say consultation with the Congress is required. Here we are, basically on the eve of the August recess which starts the first week in August. We come back here as a Congress for maybe 30 days or 5 weeks in September. Then leave again for elections. You say: The President shall consult with the Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required . . . You know, we know how this institution works. We have been here for two decades apiece. I say, if the President were to devise a redeployment schedule to meet 2007, when do you think the Congress might swing into action and take such responsibility, as implied here, through the consultation process? I presume Congress could take an action to stop it. You are talking about July 1, and I don't see the Congress acting on such a proposal in a timely manner.

Mr. WARNER. That may be true, but I will ask another question. Drop down to paragraph 3, ``maintenance of over-the-horizon troop presence.'' ``The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.'' Where would those troops, in all likelihood, be put?

Mr. WARNER. That would require a substantial amount of installations to be constructed.

Mr. WARNER. You have to admit that July 1, 2007, is a timetable; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is operating on a premise that if this became law and the President issued a timetable, suddenly the level of violence would begin to be lowered considerably.

Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to remain here as long as is necessary.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if you say the violence is not going to stop if this became law, if this becomes law, we have to make a movement in reduction in 2006. That is in there. There has to be a commencement. You would not wait and send out a platoon on Christmas Eve. You mean a significant drawdown, leaving only 6 months in the following year to get the bulk of the forces out. And if we start moving those troops, I tell you that will engender a higher level of violence and lead possibly to a civil war.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I agree fundamentally with the premise that the Iraqi people, in the final analysis, are the ones who are going to be able to bring about their own measure of democracy and enable this Government to exercise sovereignty. Other Senators want to participate, so I will soon yield. I know both of us have had the opportunity to serve in the military. There is nothing more painful than the loss of a brother member of the service. I don't know about you, but it has been difficult for me today to contain my absolute outrage about what happened, Mr. President, to these two young soldiers who raised their right arms and volunteered for this service in Iraq, to have been captured and brutally mauled and executed. You know, I would say a rough calculation is that we probably have had about a million and a quarter Americans--that is, our brave men and women in uniform and many civilians from the departments and agencies of our Government, including a number of American contractors--who have contributed to where we are today in this new Government standing up and beginning to exercise the powers of sovereignty. I say to my good friend, given that heavy investment, the risks taken by over a million and a quarter of our citizens, to send out a signal now--and it is a timetable, Senator--that July 1, 2007, barely 12 months from now that we would probably have under your formula--I ran a calculation--you are going to leave some behind for training and some for logistics, but basically I would say the fighting forces are out. Some may be pre-positioned in other countries nearby. There is a clause in here requiring a report as to how soon they can come back to the continental limits of the United States. That is going to send a signal, and that worries me, that all these people who made these risks and contributions are going to sit back and say, right at the threshold of really the first rays of hope to get this problem solved, we send this type of signal. What did you feel when we lost these two individuals? I know you felt it probably as badly as I did. I cannot understand why they could be saying over there that, see what we did, we beheaded two, and what did the Congress do? It passed this law that said our troops would be redeployed by July 1, 12 months from today. Senator, timing in life is everything. The timing for this concept you have has not arrived, I say to my good friend.

Mr. WARNER. On this side, I see my colleague from Alabama, although he has had some opportunity, but very limited opportunity.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude. The Senator from Massachusetts and I have had this conversation about that period of history before. We will have it again and again. I recall, I went to the Pentagon in February 1969 and was there for 5 years in the Navy Secretariat. As the Secretary of the Navy, the Senator always said I was his boss. He has been very respectful about that. I remember when his Silver Star came through our Secretariat at that time. I went back and checked for accuracy, and it was accurate, I say to the Senator. He knows that, and I know that. I thought many times about that period, and I recall that the then- Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, came to the conclusion that we had to begin a program of Vietnamization and begin to look toward bringing our troops home. I remember that, and the rest is history. I share those concerns. I, like the Senator from Massachusetts, every day, particularly in my responsibility as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, worry about these men and women in uniform. Like the Senator, I visit the hospitals, go to the funerals when it is appropriate for me to do so. I share that burden. I think most of our colleagues do. I happen to know that our President shares those burdens. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my friend, there is a time for everything, and I feel ever so strongly that we have to give this new government more time to try and exercise that sovereignty before we take the very dramatic steps that the Senator from Massachusetts has set forth in this amendment, which I say not as a buzzword, but there is that timetable. I do not think the other nations will come in. I do not think we could bring to bear the resources elsewhere in the world in the timetable that is laid down here. There is one other point that we should consider, and that is we are there with a coalition of forces. I see no mention--maybe I didn't read it carefully--but no mention of what would Great Britain think if we were to take this somewhat unilateral action as the Senator proposes? What would Poland, what would the other nations think? They don't have the measure of the troops of quantity and so forth, but they are there in spirit.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I admire the courage of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Senator from Massachusetts has seen it, and I have seen it. We are political figures, he and I. We understand when we see another leader. He has stood with our President and our President has stood with him, unlike any two leaders of the United States and Great Britain since really Roosevelt and Churchill. It is remarkable what those two men have done.