Date: 2007-02-14
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I would just like to say. it was interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about the principles articulated some years ago. They are reminiscent of the arguments I heard on this floor some 20 years ag6 when Ronald Reagan made the courageous decision to put medium range nuclear weapons into Europe. despite the protest of Europe. despite the protest of many on the other side. despite the fact we were told we were taking a unilateral step. Sometimes it is difficult to make these decisions. and you cant always guarantee success. And if we always went by that argument. frankly. America would not be where it is today. Let me begin with a note of bipartisanship. however. It goes without saying that we can all agree that things have not progressed as we wished they would in Iraq. Perhaps we could all agree with the characterization of the Iraq Study Group that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. I think we can all agree that there was therefore a need for a change in the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq. Not only has this happened. but we have a new Secretary of Defense and. as was stated on the floor just a moment ago. we have a new commander on the ground in Iraq. It is at this point. however. that I am somewhat mystified by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Since the resolution of disapproval concerning this change in the direction of U.S. policy contains absolutely no alternative. it follows that its adoption represents a tacit endorsement for the policies which we all agree are not working. It is a simple. logical entailment that criticism of a change in policy without any concrete alternative is tantamount to the endorsement of the status quo. Thus. we find ourselves in the ironic situation that to support this resolution is to condone a policy that virtually everyone agrees has not been working. We are telling our troops that we are sending a new commander. We are telling them by this resolution that we dont support what the new commander is doing. We are saying by this resolution we dont believe that the new plan will work. We are saying. Godspeed. we support you. But we are sending you on a fools errand. If you truly believe that. stand up here and have the guts to stop the program by cutting off the money. Take responsibility for your actions. which the Constitution allows you to do. Let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the absence of any comprehensible policy objective leaves only one element of the resolution intact: Disapproval of the President. And this. in my estimation. is most unfortunate. for there was one thing on which I wish we could all agree. This should not be about George Bush. It is far more important than that. Our response to the current state of affairs in Iraq will have dramatic consequences not only for the people in Iraq but forthe security of the American people as well. I believe we must resist the temptation to fight over matters which have long ceased to be of any relevance. The question of whether we should have initially gone into Iraq is simply not the issue. The fact is that we are there. and that is the unpleasant but essential reality to which we must respond. It is not possible to pretend otherwise or to keep looking backward or to keep quoting things that were said in the past or to suggest that we shouldnt be where we are. We are there. It is of little solace to our troops to say. gee. we made a mistake in putting you there. and therefore we are going to pass a resolution of disapproval of what we are asking you to do now. What sense does that make? What sense at all does that make? It should be acknowledged that findings concerning the absence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are not dispositive of the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. As Peter Berger. the only Westerner to conduct an interview on television with Osama bin Laden puts it. there is one thing that bin Laden and Bush agree on. says Peter Berger: that Iraq has become a central front in the war on terror. Berger. who did not support the decision to invade Iraq. warns of a potential repercussion at wars end that could make the blowback from the Afghan war against the Soviets look like high tea at the Four Seasons. This. in my estimation. is why it is so important that the impression not be given that our hand has been forced by Iraqi insurgents. notably al Qaeda of Mesopotamia. If we have learned anything from the tragic events of the Khobar Towers. the Embassy bombings in East Africa. and the attack on the USS Cole. itis that the fanatics perception of success only serves to embolden those who seek to kill us. The extreme nature of this murderous mens rea is illustrated in an article in the London Telegraph which reports. "A husband and wife arrested in the British terror raids allegedly planned to take their 6monthold baby on a midair suicide mission. using the babys milk bottle to hide a liquid bomb." The story is shocking on many levels. but perhaps so disturbing is that it shatters the belief that mothers and fathers share a common commitment to the future of their children. We face an enemy which subscribes to an ideology rooted in a nihilistic culture of death. This contemporary version of the "will to power" seeks justification for a totalist world view through the abuse of a religion to camouflage its deeper roots. As Paul Berman has chronicled in "Terrorism and Liberalism." this fascistlike ideology arising out of the revisionism of Sayyid al Qutb taught that there was no middle ground and no possibility of compromise. Bin Laden became interested in a radical distortion of Islam from the fiery taped sermons of Abdullah Azzam. a disciple of al Qutb. and came to share Qutbs grim view of the world and used it to justify mass murder. By the late 1980s. following the crackdown by the Egyptian Government on the extreme Islamist groups in response to the assassination of Sadat in 1981. many of the Islamic militants went into exile. It was through the presence of Egyptian Islamist teachers in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members were influenced. most notably. Ayman alZawahiri. a leader in the Egypt Islamic jihad. Another avenue by which this totalist ideology was introduced to the Middle East via the Vichy Government of France during World War II. which despite its short shelflife. infected the French mandated territory of SyriaLebanon. It was during this time that the ideological foundations of the Baathist Party were laid and a Nazi regime headed by Rabid Ali was set up in Iraq. During this same period. the mufti of Jerusalem was wined and dined by none other than Hitler himself. The point is that there were some very dark influences on this region of the world which are still playing themselves out today. We cannot believe that our absence from this area will solve problems and allow us to retreat. We must make no mistake about .their intentions: They seek to kill us. Ayman alZawahiri. al Qaedas second in command. has left us with no ambiguity on the matter when he states that they have the right to kill 4 million Americans. 2 million of them children. and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. No. we must not give such people a misapprehension about any misguided notions they may have about their providential place in history. Although our ultimate objective in Iraq is to hand over power in an orderly fashion .to a duly constituted government. the manner in which we do so is of the highest order of importance. That is what I dont hear from the other side. It is not just the question of peace being the absence of war. it is what we will have in the aftermath. What kind of a world will we -have in the Middle East? Will it be safer for our children and our grandchildren? Will the implications of our decisions be heard in history as something of which we will be proud. or will it be just that we got tired of the effort? And if we believe that by absenting ourselves from the area. that solves problems. it has never been the case. It wasnt the case when we got out of Lebanon following the attack on our marines. it was not the case when we basically got out of the area after the USS Cole. Again. independent of the origins of al Qaedas presence in Iraq. the relevant point is how al Qaeda itself perceives the war there. It is their potential reaction to our Iraqi policy which has most relevance. In this regard. the intercepted letter sent by alZawahiri to alZarqawi is most important and has been mentioned on this floor many times. He said. We must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it. and it is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate. and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq and Sunni areas in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries of neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: Go after Israel. It is. therefore. clear that regardless of how we might wish the situation to be. wishful thinking. as described in this resolution. is not a basis for policy. Al Qaeda is present in Iraq. and they perceive it to be a central front in the war. It is simply not possible for us to pretend otherwise. as much as we would like it. This resolution does nothing to help us in this war against Islamic fascism. In fact. it goes in the opposite direction.