Who saved transcript from Iraq withdrawal debate? Warner mentioned a new resolution

[blm]

would have to be drawn to deal with civil war as it was never part of the mission - that is the part I am looking for.

[ProSense]

1. Here the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2887858&mesg_id=2887858

[TayTay]

2. There are two of these

This is a floor colliquoy between Sen. Kerry and Sen. Warner of the Armed Services Committee about civil war in Iraq.

HOWEVER, Sen. Warner made his comments about renegotiating the terms of the IWR in Committee, not on the floor of the Senate. I believe this happened in August, so go here and dig. http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=2035

Kerry/Warner colloquay 06/21/06


Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it might be the case, but I would be willing to make a modest wager with you that if you got this conference under way, the first thing that they would ask would be to suspend this timetable of July 1, 2007.

Mr. KERRY. And if that were the case, and they were prepared to come to the table to resolve these issues and be part of this process, then the President could come back to us and we would respond accordingly. We are not stupid. We want to act in the best interest of our country. The question is, how do you begin to push people to a place where they realize they have to confront these realities?

Secondly, the Senator's question makes a presumption that I just fundamentally disagree with and don't see in this amendment. That is if we pull out the foundation, I think the Senator said, we specifically say we arrive at a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi forces.

I have asked the Senator from Virginia, what are we there for? What are we there to do? We are there to fight al-Qaida. We allow for that. We are there to stand up Iraqis for themselves. We allow that. And we are certainly there to protect American facilities. So what is it that is absent from here that would somehow pull out the foundation from anything?

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. KERRY. Let me say to the Senator, I know he doesn't want American troops in the middle of a civil war. I know he doesn't think that that is why we sent our troops there.

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

Mr. KERRY. That is where they are.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I say respectfully, we will continue to be able to do that. Over the course of the next year, with over-the-horizon capacity and with our ability to move in an emergency, we are not going away. We have plenty of troops in Kuwait. We could have plenty of troops over the horizon. That is not going to fall apart. The problem is that the tasks that the Senator is referring to, each of them are civilian tasks. They are political tasks. You don't need 138,000 American troops as targets to complete those tasks when you have 400,000 Iraqis allegedly trained and equipped and prepared to defend their country.

Let me ask the Senator: Did Iraq or did it not fight Iran for 10 years within the last 25 years?

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

Mr. KERRY. And they lost a million people fighting for almost 10 years for their country. These are the same people. Four years later we are still driving trucks down the street and our guys are taking IEDs. Are you telling me that they don't have people who can drive a truck? They don't have people to go out on patrol? Why aren't our people garrisoned and being held in reserve in case there is an implosion? What are we doing with our troops being the ones that have to go out? I don't get it. I believe there is a better way to wage this effort. That is what this amendment contemplates.

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. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a legitimate question and it deserves, obviously, an answer.

Those countries, many of them, are reluctant to become engaged with the United States as long as they see us on the status quo path, because they see the same series of mistakes that I have just cited. If you talk to them, they will tell you, they don't have confidence that this administration is going to get it right or move in the right direction. That is why I believe you have to come in and lay out a path.

In my judgment, historically, most Presidents would not want the Congress telling them to do this. If I were President, I wouldn't want them telling me to do this. But at the same time, I would hope that I had consulted with Congress and not been as stubborn and not made the series of mistakes they have so that you wind up having alienated the very people you need to solve the problem. If you don't have some kind of regional security arrangement, the situation with Iran will grow more serious.

Iran loves the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq. This just plays perfect for Iran. And Iran has a much stronger lever over us with respect to its current nuclear path because they know they could wreak havoc with what is happening on the ground in Iraq, and that restricts our choices and options.

We will be stronger in counter pro lifera tion efforts, we will be stronger in our efforts against terrorism in the region, and we will be able to create the credibility to bring these other countries to the table, which they are not willing to do today, if we make this kind of transition. If they understand that we are acknowledging that our presence is a problem, they have to step up because they don't want regional chaos. I believe that is exactly what helps us get it done. That is what changes the dynamics.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have covered this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[blm]

3. Thanks - will dig

.