|
Lieberman Makes Moral and Strategic Case Against Iraq Withdrawal
Lieberman opposes Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Accuses Democrats of Hrassing president and stonewalling our troops. Go Lieberman!
Date: 4/14/2007 1:30:55 AM ( 17 y ) ... viewed 2111 times Lieberman Makes Moral and Strategic Case Against Iraq Withdrawal
"We cannot redeploy from our moral responsibility to the Iraqis."
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Arguing for eliminating Iraq withdrawal language from the supplemental appropriations legislation, Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) stated on the Senate floor today,
"Indeed, it is an awful irony of this debate that many of the same people who consistently and correctly call on the United States to do more to stop the bloodshed in Darfur now demand we abandon the Iraqis."
Senator Lieberman continued, "We hear that Sunnis and Shia have been fighting for centuries, and that no matter how tragic, we cannot possibly hope to resolve this conflict. We have heard these arguments before. We heard them in the 1990s about Yugoslavia. We heard them about Rwanda. Like the euphemism of "civil war," it is another way for us to distance ourselves, emotionally and morally, from what is actually happening—and from the people it is happening to. It allows us to think of these places as a sort of abstract tragedy, in which there are no victims, just victimizers, whom we can walk away from with impunity... The wanton slaughter of innocent people that our soldiers are trying to stop in Baghdad is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds, but the consequence of a deliberate, calculated strategy by an identifiable group of perpetrators—first and foremost, Al Qaeda."
Concluding, Senator Lieberman outlined both the strategic and moral consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq, "I ask my colleagues: consider what it will mean if Congress orders our troops to pull back from this battle, just at the moment that they are taking the initiative. Consider the consequences if we knowingly and willingly withdraw our forces and abandon one of the few states in the Middle East to have held free, competitive elections to extremism and violence..."
"We cannot redeploy from our moral responsibility to the Iraqis. It is contrary to our traditions; it is contrary to our values; and it is contrary to our interests. And yet that is precisely what this Congress will be calling for, if we order our troops to withdraw."
Below is the full text of the Senator's remarks as prepared for delivery:
Mr. President, Congress approaches a decisive turning point in the history of our engagement in Iraq—a moment that will have repercussions not only for the future of that country and our presence there, but for our security right here in the United States.
The immediate question before us is direct. Should Congress impose a deadline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq?
We all know the circumstances under which this vote takes place. The administration is politically weak. The war is politically unpopular. It has never been easier to advocate withdrawal, to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough."
But each of us has a responsibility to do what we believe is right—not what is easy. And I believe deeply it would be wrong for this Congress to order a withdrawal of American troops from this war at this time.
What are the arguments given to justify this arbitrary withdrawal?
First, proponents of withdrawal keep returning to the proposition that Americans soldiers shouldn't be policing a "civil war."
But what does this mean?
Surely my colleagues don't mean to say that the United States military, as a general principle, should never police a civil war.
That would certainly come as a surprise to our soldiers who have been keeping the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, dispatched there under a Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress.
Clearly, our military has policed civil wars in the past. So why do proponents of withdrawal from Iraq keep insisting it shouldn't now?
The answer, I think, has to do with the way we choose to characterize what's happening in Iraq.
When we suggest that our soldiers are stuck in a civil war, it suggests that the conflict there has become hopeless—a pit of violence which there are no heroes—only villains—and where our military cannot possibly do any good.
But is this really the case?
Consider the Iraqi government—a government freely elected by the people of Iraq, a government where every day Iraqis of every ethnicity and sectarian identity come together. I know that the Iraqi government has many faults and weaknesses, and we should be using every instrument at our disposal to pressure its leaders to make the right choices. But there is a world of difference between the moderates who compose the Iraqi government and the extremists who seek to murder them.
The image of Iraq as a country in which everyone—Sunni, Shia, and Kurd—is complicit in the violence also overlooks something else.
It overlooks a sixty-seven year old widow in Baghdad who was told to leave her home or be killed because she is Sunni... It overlooks the dozens of college students murdered in their classroom by a suicide bomber for no reason other than that they are Shia... It overlooks the fourteen year girl who watched as her neighbor was gunned down, as he walked over to her house to say hello...
Mr. President, the term "civil war" does not begin to describe the atrocities inflicted on these people. The truth is, what we are confronted with in Iraq is the deliberate, calculated, murder of civilians, often on the basis of religious identity alone, by insurgents and terrorists.
My colleagues: Even if you think that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, surely all of us can unite around the proposition that we have a moral responsibility not to turn our backs on this.
Like the Serb death squads that tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo, or the Hutu extremists in Rwanda, or the janjaweed today in Darfur, the sectarian violence we are witnessing in Iraq is directed at the extermination of human beings on the basis of nothing more than who they are.
Indeed, it is an awful irony of this debate that many of the same people who consistently and correctly call on the United States to do more to stop the bloodshed in Darfur now demand we abandon the Iraqis.
And yet, if anything, precisely because United States did invade Iraq, we are more, not less, responsible for stopping the atrocities unfolding there now. There can be no disentangling ourselves, no moral withdrawal, from Iraq.
I know that some believe the violence in Iraq is inevitable, the outgrowth of ancient hatreds that exist outside the bounds of normal politics. We hear that Sunnis and Shia have been fighting for centuries, and that no matter how tragic, we cannot possibly hope to resolve this conflict.
We have heard these arguments before. We heard them in the 1990s about Yugoslavia. We heard them about Rwanda. Like the euphemism of "civil war," it is another way for us to distance ourselves, emotionally and morally, from what is actually happening—and from the people it is happening to. It allows us to think of these places as a sort of abstract tragedy, in which there are no victims, just victimizers, whom we can walk away from with impunity.
Surely we have learned this lesson by now? Surely we should know better than that now?
The wanton slaughter of innocent people that our soldiers are trying to stop in Baghdad is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds, but the consequence of a deliberate, calculated strategy by an identifiable group of perpetrators—first and foremost, Al Qaeda.
We know this because Al Qaeda itself has said so. Its leaders have stated openly that they want to foment hatred and fear between Sunnis and Shiites, precisely because they know it represents their best bet to sow chaos; to stamp out any hope of Middle Eastern democracy; and, as our debate today shows, to push the United States to the point of retreat.
This is also why the notion, expressed in this supplemental, that we can separate the fight against terrorism from the fight against sectarian violence in Iraq simply defies reality. The fact of the matter is, the worst sectarian violence is being committed by Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists.
The problem in Iraq is not the split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites, but a specific ideology—the ideology of Islamist extremism—that is trying to exploit this divide for its own evil ends.
The success of this ideology is not inevitable. Thanks to General Petraeus and the new strategy, sectarian violence is down. Moqtada al-Sadr has disappeared. The Mahdi Army is splintering. Displaced families appear to be returning to their homes.
Of course, we will not know for some time to what extent the new strategy will succeed. But it is clear that, for the first time, in a long time, security appears to be improving.
Despite this evidence, however, advocates of withdrawal insist General Petraeus' new strategy cannot succeed because the conflict requires a "political settlement." They even argue that our efforts to protect the Iraqi people will make things worse by allowing the Iraqi government to avoid making compromises.
The problem with this argument is that it is directly contradicted by our experience over the past two months.
Consider the record: In the past two months, Prime Minister Maliki has allowed U.S. forces to sweep into Sadr City. He has worked with General Petraeus to ensure that all the Iraqi Army units required by the new strategy are available. He has flown to the heart of Anbar province to meet with Sunni leaders.
His cabinet has approved a new oil law—one of the key benchmarks for political progress. And, as of yesterday, he has approved a crucial reconciliation law that will allow all but the three highest levels of former Baathists to return to their jobs and collect a pension.
These breakthroughs happened not in spite, but because of the American commitment to Iraq, and because of the presence of General Petraeus and his troops.
I ask my colleagues: consider what it will mean if Congress orders our troops to pull back from this battle, just at the moment that they are taking the initiative. Consider the consequences if we knowingly and willingly withdraw our forces and abandon one of the few states in the Middle East to have held free, competitive elections to extremism and violence.
I understand the frustration and anger and sheer sense of exhaustion that so many feel about Iraq, a conflict that has been dogged with so many mistakes and missteps.
And I am acutely aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life—American and Iraqi.
But I ask those eager to wind up our commitments in Iraq, those determined to order a withdrawal: I ask you to think carefully about the consequences, not just geopolitical but moral, of what you are calling for.
We cannot redeploy from our moral responsibility to the Iraqis. It is contrary to our traditions; it is contrary to our values; and it is contrary to our interests. And yet that is precisely what this Congress will be calling for, if we order our troops to withdraw.
Don't do this. Give General Petraeus a chance. Strike this language from the bill.
I ask for unanimous consent to enter my full remarks into the record.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
